Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Small Business (Government Regulation)

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of small business organisations in Wales to discuss central Government regulation of business.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with representatives of the business community to discuss issues that concern them. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be attending a CBI Wales reception tomorrow in north Wales.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that over the past eight years, Britain has fallen from fourth in the   world competitiveness rankings to 12th—the Principality has fallen by a similar amount. Is he aware that the Welsh CBI, Welsh chambers of commerce and the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses are saying that the cause of the fall is excessive regulation and that they are worried about possible job losses? Does he agree that if it were not for the extra jobs in the public sector, unemployment in Wales would probably be going up?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman's last statement was not true. There has recently been significant growth in the private sector. For example, in the third quarter of 2005, some 4,800 new small businesses were created in Wales. The hon. Gentleman claimed that the CBI and other business organisations were concerned, but let me give him some other quotes. Today's edition of The Western Mail says that a report by the Royal Bank of Scotland states that Wales begins 2006 with new momentum and confidence. It is reported that the Welsh economy picked up pace at the end of 2005, with growth in output and the acceleration of new orders suggesting that firms are confident about business prospects in the year ahead. That is the reality in Wales.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that   new jobs in Wales are being created only in the public sector? My constituency has had renewable manufacturing jobs in the energy sector, and we have an unemployment rate of 2.5 per cent. Will he commend the Assembly for the introduction of business laboratories, which are bringing into small business people in towns such as Wrexham who have never experienced entrepreneurship before? Those people commend the stability of the manufacturing sector and business generally, and I think that the Government are doing an excellent job.

Nick Ainger: Not surprisingly, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The facts speak for themselves. More than 1,300 grants totalling £40 million have been given to small businesses in Wales under the investment grant programme. I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the Technium programme. We have invested £150 million in 13 Technium sites, and new businesses are being developed, research is going ahead and jobs are being created. That, again, is good news for Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister boasts about the number of start-ups, but fails to tell us the number of businesses that have closed down. With unemployment rising in Wales, it is more important than ever to address the regulatory burden that inhibits small businesses. Following the publication of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, what targets has he set for cutting the burden of regulation on Welsh business, and will he publish those targets?

Nick Ainger: It is not for me to set those targets, but a measurement exercise is under way to establish the baseline. May I welcome the hon. Lady to her first Welsh questions? The fact is that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is the most radical such measure anywhere in the world. The CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce are totally supportive of   it and see it as a major way forward on reducing regulation. It will build on what we achieved during our presidency of the European Union. The Commission is now withdrawing 68 pending laws and simplifying more than 220 pieces of legislation. That situation contrasts with the 8,100 statutory instruments that were passed in the last three years of the Conservative Government.

European Structural Funding

Wayne David: What decisions have been reached on the future of European structural funding in the objective 1 area of Wales.

Nick Ainger: On 16 December 2005, the European Council reached agreement on the European Union budget for 2007–13. As a consequence, west Wales and the valleys will qualify for the highest level of European funding and will continue to benefit from substantial European structural fund receipts for the next seven years. Work is already well under way by the Assembly to prepare the new round of programmes that are due to commence in January 2007.

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I   point out that Caerphilly county borough alone has attracted £36 million of objective 1 funding in the current funding period, which has created no fewer than 11,300 new jobs? Is that level of investment likely to continue under the new funding arrangement that has been agreed?

Nick Ainger: Absolutely. The deal means that the level of structural funds coming into Wales for the next six to seven years will be the same as we have received in the last six to seven years. It will total around £1.3 billion, which will be on top of the Assembly's block grant. The success of the programme so far means that probably, by the end of 2006, more than 40,000 new jobs will have been created; the unemployment rate in west Wales and the valleys will fall at twice the rate of the rest of the UK; and we will see full-time earnings in west Wales and the valleys growing twice as fast as in the rest of the UK. We can build on that huge success now that we have secured the great victory of getting objective 1 funding up to 2013.

Roger Williams: West Wales and the valleys is not the only area in Wales that benefits from structural funds; certainly, the rural areas of Powys and the urban areas of Newport and Cardiff also benefit. Will those areas continue to get support under the new budget arrangements?

Nick Ainger: Yes, they will. Under the competitiveness and employment programmes the rest of Wales will qualify. The level has not yet been decided, but those areas will continue to benefit, perhaps even more so in certain places because the support could be more targeted. That is dependent on negotiations in Brussels.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I urge my hon. Friend to note the £19.8 million that has been spent in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) under objective 1? Will he note also that this party was initially criticised because nobody thought that we could deliver objective 1, and nobody thought that we would do it this time either, but once again we have proved the Opposition parties completely wrong?

Nick Ainger: That is absolutely right. At the beginning, we were told that we were not going to get objective 1; we did. Then we were told that we would not get the Treasury backing, and we did. Then we were told that it would not work, and it did—we not only created all those jobs but raised average earnings and addressed our infrastructure. Finally, we were told that because we were being so successful, we would not get objective 1 again, and we must do the deal urgently or we would lose it. The Opposition, particularly Plaid Cymru, were wrong every time. This is a major victory for Wales. We should accept that all the way along, over the past seven years, this Government have delivered objective 1 for Wales.

Ministerial Visits

Elfyn Llwyd: How many times he has visited constituencies in north and mid-Wales since 1 October 2005.

Peter Hain: I visited on 22 October. I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that I will be visiting several locations in north Wales tomorrow and again next month.

Elfyn Llwyd: So that is once in that long period, which is what I would expect from a part-time Secretary of State for Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Gwynedd and north Wales, people would tell him that there is one NHS dentist available for the whole of north Wales. His support for the vacuous and specious plan   for an all-Wales police force is laughable. In the elegant words of his colleague the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), it is "bloody nonsense"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be using intemperate language, even in a quote. I noted more than one supplementary, so we will let the Secretary of State answer.

Peter Hain: Intemperate language from an intemperate party that does not represent Wales. The truth is that north and mid-Wales have been doing much better under this Government, with almost 50,000 extra jobs created since 1997, work about to start on a £14.8 million new community hospital in Porthmadog, and a £9.9 million community hospital in Holywell. Whether on health or employment, Labour is delivering for north Wales, and the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru have consistently failed north Wales.

Albert Owen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has certainly been no stranger to my constituency since he was appointed to his post, and neither have his parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Moreover, since October 2005, I have led numerous delegations to the Wales Office, which the Secretary of State has received, to discuss the important issues concerning my constituency, including the future of Wylfa nuclear power station and Anglesey Aluminium Metal Ltd, to name but two. Will the Secretary of State revisit my constituency to see new companies such as BioCycle Ltd, which has just been set up providing 24 new jobs, and which has won a Green Apple environmental award in 2005?

Peter Hain: Not surprisingly, I welcome that question. On the numerous visits that I have paid to my hon. Friend's constituency of Ynys Môn, I have seen the consistent transformation of the appalling economic situation that we inherited from the Tory Government. Employment is up, new businesses are starting up, and the island is being transformed, especially since my hon. Friend was elected as its Member of Parliament.

David Davies: When the Secretary of State for Wales next makes one of his rare appearances in mid-Wales, will he take note of the crisis that has been caused by bovine tuberculosis? Will he also explain to the farmers in the area why the National Assembly for Wales appears set to reject all the evidence that TB is passed to cattle by badgers, in direct contrast to the Government in England, who are at least taking some note of the expert advice that they have been given?

Peter Hain: I do not believe that anybody believes anything that the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Cheryl Gillan: First, may I thank the junior Minister for his warm welcome? When the Secretary of State next goes to north and mid-Wales, will he talk to people about their concerns over the governance, command structures, time scale and funding of the police restructuring programme? The Home Office has said that there will be no new money to fund the proposed changes. Will the   Secretary of State now address the question that he failed to answer on 2 November, and tell concerned council tax payers in Wales by how much their bills will increase to pay for these plans?

Peter Hain: First, I join my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in welcoming the hon. Lady to her first Question Time in her new post. May I remind her that my first decision as a Wales Office Minister back in 1997 was to abolish the nursery vouchers that she had introduced as a Tory Minister?
	Policing would be much better in north Wales and other regions of Wales if we had an all-Wales force that was able to tackle the important level 2 issues such as terrorism, drug dealing and serious organised crime by having the capacity to deliver, which the small forces do not have at the moment. The Home Secretary has made available additional funding to those police authorities that are able to join the restructuring, which will benefit neighbourhood policing and equip our policemen to protect us more safely in our communities right across Wales.

Unemployment

Stephen Crabb: If he will make a statement on unemployment in Wales.

Peter Hain: Unemployment in Wales is at an historic low, and is lower than in the UK as a whole.

Stephen Crabb: I am disappointed by the complacency shown by the Secretary of State and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary this morning. Are they not aware that unemployment across Wales has been increasing for 10 consecutive months, in some constituencies by up to 35 per cent.? With Welsh manufacturing output slumping in the past year by 6 per cent. and the Chancellor's public sector jobs splurge coming to an end, is there not a real danger that much of the excellent progress that we have made on the Welsh job front since 1992 is now starting to unwind?

Peter Hain: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman claims to speak for a constituency that has the fourth highest business start-up rate in any part of the United Kingdom, in which small businesses are booming because of the economic climate that the Government have created, in which unemployment has halved, and in which new opportunities are being created all the time, including the Bluestone holiday project. In Milford Haven, up to 700 construction jobs have been created through the construction of the new liquefied natural gas plant project. Pembrokeshire is booming under Labour; it was failing under the Tories.

Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he and I were first elected to the House in the dark days of Thatcherism, unemployment was our main concern? Now it is not an issue until it is dredged up by the right hon. and hon.   piffle artists on the Benches opposite. It is a matter of celebration that EADS Defence Systems—a great leviathan of an international company—has opened its new factory at Glyndwr House in Newport. It will act as a high-tech magnet to bring many jobs to Newport, Gwent and the rest of Wales.

Peter Hain: Indeed. The latest jobs announcement is vital. The Newport area is now a magnet for high-tech investment in the defence industry and in other parts of the economy. That goes to prove what my hon. Friend says about Wales succeeding under the Labour Government as it has never succeeded before. There are 118,000 more people in jobs in Wales than when the Tories were last in office.

Hywel Williams: How does the Secretary of State respond to the Joseph Rowntree finding that 40 per cent. of people in low-income households have someone who is in work? That is in-work poverty, up sharply from 30 per cent. in the mid-1990s, with 150,00 Welsh people in in-work poverty. Is not poverty in Wales poverty in work or out of it?

Peter Hain: The number of workless households is still an important problem. It was terrible when we came into office and it is still not as good as it should be. We are tackling it with many of the measures that Plaid Cymru Members sometimes vote against. I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us next time.

Lembit �pik: Is the Secretary of State aware that numbers employed in full-time Welsh agriculture have fallen by 55 per cent. since 1997, that over 600 manufacturing jobs have been lost in mid-Wales since 2001, and that even now significant manufacturing jobs, such as the 120 jobs at   the cheese processing plant at Felinfach, are under threat? In that context, is he willing to meet me and a   delegation of representatives from the Farmers Union   of Wales, the National Farmers Union and the Mid-Wales Manufacturing Group to discuss what measures we might take to reverse that trend?

Peter Hain: Of course I should be happy to receive such a delegation, although I point out that despite the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes in that particular plant, there are 15,000 vacancies right across Wales. The difference is that when people lose their jobs through restructuring, including in the agricultural industry, it is regrettable and unfortunate, but compared with the Tory years, there are other jobs to go to and a support mechanism in place to provide reskilling and retraining and to assist people into more opportunities.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for his warm welcome to me at the Dispatch Box. Given the loss of 500 jobs at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency St. Athan site, and given that the Government spent over 100 million of public money on the construction of the Red Dragon facility without ensuring its future, does the Secretary of State agree with the Select Committee on Defence that their decision on Red Dragon was incomprehensible and showed a clear lack of joined-up government? Does he support an investigation by the Wales Audit Office and the National Audit Office into that disgrace?

Peter Hain: The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that it fully expects to recover its investment in the Red   Dragon project by April 2007. That has left Wales with a highly marketable first-class facility to attract new investors. Up to 300 jobs are coming in 18 months, and St. Athan is well placed to bid as an excellent location for the defence training review jobs. I fully support that very strong bid, and the opportunities at St. Athan will make it an excellent site for that project.

Train Services (Rhondda)

Chris Bryant: What representations he has received regarding the quality of train services in the Rhondda.

Nick Ainger: I am conscious of the concerns felt by my hon. Friend and others on this subject, especially in relation to overcrowding. The Welsh Assembly Government are investing 50 million over the next 14   years to enhance capacity on the Valley Lines network. This has already provided an almost 20 per cent. increase in seats and doubled the length of 15   peak-time trains every weekday, but more must be done to meet increasing demand.

Chris Bryant: Would my hon. Friend buy a car that broke down every 2,500 miles? Trains in the Rhondda break down on average every 2,367 miles, largely because Arriva Trains never bothers to maintain the trains properly. Will my hon. Friend call Arriva Trains senior management into his office, give them a proper grilling and point out to them that third-class rail service was   meant to have been abolished 43 years ago, not perpetuated in the Rhondda?

Nick Ainger: As I have said, I am conscious of my hon. Friend's concern. I have already asked Arriva Trains to meet me and explain what they plan to do to replace the Pacer trains, which have an appalling track record. That is essential, because demand from people travelling from the Rhondda, other valleys and the vale   of Glamorgan into the Cardiff area is clearly increasing. Those people need and deserve quality transport, which Arriva should deliver as quickly as possible.

Employment Levels

Martin Caton: if he will make a statement on employment levels in (a) Gower and (b) Wales.

Peter Hain: Over the past year, employment levels in Wales have been at an historic high. Gower also enjoys high employment, with an employment rate that is higher than the Wales average.

Martin Caton: Employment levels have improved dramatically since 1997 in my constituency thanks to the Labour Government, but some Gower people who work over the border in Llanelli at the MOD establishment at Llangennech face losing their jobs, along with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), whom I commend on her work defending those jobs. Despite an excellent performance record, the facility is threatened by a proposal that will reduce the quality of service to our armed services, that will fail to achieve the predicted savings and that will inevitably undermine the local economy. Will my right hon. Friend press his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to think again?

Peter Hain: I am happy to discuss the matter with my colleagues in the MOD, but the Secretary of State for Defence and his team have had to make tough decisions to equip our forces in order for them to remain the finest fighting force in the world. However, a support team is in place to help anyone who leaves their job to find alternative employment.

Nigel Evans: Will the Secretary of State for Wales tell the House whether he is proud that on his watch one of the major exports from Wales is manufacturing jobs?

Peter Hain: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the cheek to ask that question, because manufacturing jobs were massacred in Wales under the Tories. The truth is that manufacturing output and exports have continued to remain relatively stable in Wales. Almost every month, we attract new manufacturing companies to Wales, and we are driving up the value-added, high-tech manufacturing sector with the support of this   Labour Government, who have provided a macroeconomic climate that is conducive to high-level manufacturing.

Defence Aviation Repair Agency

John Smith: what recent discussions he has had on the future of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, St. Athan; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: I   have such discussions regularly. RAF St. Athan is a world class resource with a high-tech skills base, which we point to when we seek to attract further investment in Wales.

John Smith: In light of the Defence Committee report on St. Athan, which has been published today, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do everything that he can to make sure that the mistakes made by the MOD are not repeated on a much bigger project, the defence training rationalisation programme, by ensuring that the proposals are considered openly and transparently and that the final decision is based on merit and merit alone and not on back-door deals?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Defence and his team will ensure that the decision is made on merit. St. Athan offers an excellent solution as   the location for the defence training review. One of the   bidding consortiums, Metrix, has made St. Athan a   major element of its bid, which has my support and   that of the Welsh Assembly Government. I am sure that that bid will be considered on its merits, which are excellent.

Adam Price: The Defence Committee report criticises the lack of joined-up thinking between the National Assembly for Wales and Whitehall, which is the understatement of the   century. If, as Amicus claims in its evidence in the report, Morgan Stanley proposes the closure of the   remaining site, will the Wales Office oppose that proposal?

Peter Hain: We have been working very closely on that and we will continue to do so. The truth is that whatever decision has been made as regards St. Athan in the interests of restructuring the armed forces, there are still excellent opportunities. Three hundred more jobs are already on the way in 18 months' time, and there is the prospect of a strong bid for the defence training review jobs. It has a bright future and we will work very hard to secure that.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key issue[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are being unfair to the hon. Lady who is addressing the House.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key issue is to try to retain the critical mass of expertise that has been built up in aeronautical repair work at St. Athan, where many of my constituents work? What will he do to try to keep that expertise there?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is rightthere is a fantastic expertise and tradition that has served the defence industry very well. That is why we are working hard to attract new projects. We have already been successful and I am confident that we can be so in future, because it is an ideal location for defence work and for the defence training review jobs that the MOD will decide upon in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Robert Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 January.

Tony Blair: This morning I   had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

Robert Smith: I must draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as a shareholder of Shell.
	I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that at a time of high energy prices and concerns over supply we should be doing all that we can to maximise oil and gas production. Given the worries in north-east Scotland that we might not achieve that potential, even though there is more than 30 years of work still left to do, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a delegation of concerned constituents and industry representatives to hear how this country can unlock the maximum wealth of the oil and gas waiting on our doorstep?

Tony Blair: I am perfectly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and any constituents or business interests that he wishes to bring to see me. It is obviously important that we get the right regime for the North seathat is what we try to dobut he is certainly right to say that energy policy is a major issue for the coming years.

Natascha Engel: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning one of the most disgraceful decisions by Liberal-led Chesterfield borough council in closing the only available swimming facility in one of the most deprived wards near my part of the constituency in Staveley?

Tony Blair: Yes, I think that on balance I   can. I join my hon. Friend in condemning that decision. It is extremely important that we invest in community facilities; that is why the Government are putting major sums into that. I hope that local authorities follow the Government's lead instead of cutting those facilities.

David Cameron: With rising deficits in the NHS, huge costs of pension reform and   tighter pressures on public spending, how can the Prime Minister claim that spending at least 600 million a year on his ID card scheme is a good use of public money?

Tony Blair: Because if we introduce an ID card scheme and reduce identity fraud, that makes a major difference to the costs of Government and the costs of doing business. In today's world, if we want to tackle illegal migration, crime and identity fraud, using the new biometric technology to have ID cards is an important part of doing so.

David Cameron: But we face those problems and threats today; these cards will not come in until 2013. The Prime Minister could use the money to buy 20,000 extra police officers or to have 24-hour security at our ports. Will he accept that almost every Government IT programme has massively overrun? What guarantee can he give that his estimates are right, whereas the London School of Economics, which talks about costs of 14.5 billionalmost half the entire budget of the Department for Education and Skillsis wrong?

Tony Blair: First, if the right hon. Gentleman's concern is that ID cards will not be introduced quickly enough, he should work with us to ensure that they are introduced more quickly, but that is an absurd reason for not introducing them. As for the calculations made by the LSE, I think that I am right that, although the report was put out under the LSE's name, it was actually written by the leading campaigner against ID cards on the ground of civil liberties. So I do not think that it is an entirely objective assessment.
	The right hon. Gentleman should think again about ID cards, which are an important, indeed, essential way of tackling illegal migration and crime in the early 21st   century. Perhaps I may put it like this: they may be the future, not the past.

David Cameron: When it comes to who is working with   the Prime Minister, perhaps he could answer the   following question. It has been widely reported that   the Chancellor does not back ID cards and would scrap them, so will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that, when the Chancellor takes over his job, the scheme will be continued?

Tony Blair: I certainly can give a guarantee that the Government as a whole are absolutely behind ID cardsthe Chancellor himself has provided the start-up costs. Why are ID cards so important now? Because we know, from all the available evidence, that identity fraud is on the increasethat is bound to happen in the modern world. Many people, including the former leader of the Conservative party, reached the conclusion that we need identity cards, and it is right to do that now because the biometric technology is coming in. Other countries are moving towards biometric passports and we will have to do that. The largest part of the cost of an identity card will be the biometric passport, which we must have. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the biometric passport; perhaps he could elucidate thatwe know that his policy tends to shift a little quickly nowadays.
	We need the identity card to fight crime, illegal migration and identity fraud in the early 21st century and the costs will be largely met by the biometric passport.

David Cameron: I think that I should remind the Prime Minister that these sessions are about me asking questions on behalf of the public and him answering on behalf of the Government. If he wants to switch that around, he can hold a general election. Does not he have a choice: think again or plough on with what will become a monument to the failure of big government?

Tony Blair: I totally disagree with him. I apologise for asking policy questions but the right hon. Gentleman's policies change so quicklyalmost on a day-to-day basisthat sometimes it is a good idea to inform myself simply to keep up with where he is at any one time.
	With the greatest respect, he should think again about the matter. We will have to introduce biometric passportsI know that he agrees with thatand we will therefore have to make enormous changes in the years to come for the vast bulk of people who have passports. Identity fraud is also a major and growing problem. People throughout the world are moving towards identity card systems because they are necessary to tackle the problems of today's world. Of course there is a cost to identity cards but there is a cost to identity fraud in so many different ways. As the argument progresses, I suspect that he will find himself in the same   position as he has been on rather a lot of policies recently, from the patient's passport to selection in schools and from the environment to social justiceI   could go on; it is a long list. At the next general election, I suspect that he will be standing on his head on ID cards, as he has done on so many other issues.

Jim Devine: My right hon. Friend will know that, this week, the leader of a minor political party in Scotland announced that he would run for the Scottish Parliament next year. Not only has he put his name down for the constituency, which he will lose, but he has put himself first on the list, which he may win. Many of my constituents are asking whether it is fair that he has two bites at the democratic cherry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an affront to democracy when losers can become winners?

Tony Blair: Putting himself high on the list scores high on pragmatism but not on principle. In any event, I think that he will lose.

Menzies Campbell: rose [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be heard. Hon. Members had some fun last week but he has a right to address the House.

Menzies Campbell: Following the tragic murders at Soham, Sir Michael Bichard, in a report published over 18 months ago, made 31 recommendations. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many of them have been implemented?

Tony Blair: I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman precisely how many have been implemented since Michael Bichard produced his report, but we will ensure that legislation is introduced to implement that report. Michael himself said the other evening that
	the Department for Education and Science have been working hard since the inquiry on producing a single barring scheme and they've kept me in touch with . . . what they were doing, and I'm very impressed with the work actually that they've done.

Menzies Campbell: The Prime Minister will know that one of the key recommendations of the Bichard inquiry was a police computer system designed to share intelligence about sex offenders. Can he tell us why the IMPACT computer system is reported to be three years behind schedule, and when does he expect it to be fully functional?

Tony Blair: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the reason off the cuff, but I will write to him. However, since 1997this is an important point that should be made in light of all the recent perfectly understandable controversythere has been a tightening, not a loosening, of the system. It is worth pointing out that people have taken these types of decisions in very difficult cases going back many, many decades. Of course, it is important that we introduce Sir   Michael Bichard's recommendations, and tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will talk about further safeguards that we will introduce and which, I very much hope, will command the support of the whole House.

Mary Creagh: How will the Prime Minister's respect agenda help my constituents in Wakefield who live on estates near problem families? Does he agree that talk of sacking so-called underperforming police officers, as some hon. Members have suggested, does nothing to boost police morale in west Yorkshire?

Tony Blair: I think it is important to recognise that where the police and local authorities are   using those antisocial behaviour powers they are making a real difference. My hon. Friend will know of such cases in her own constituency, and hon. Members up and down the country will know of the impact of the legislation. Of course, it is important that we make sure that everyone is aware of that. All local authorities are using the antisocial behaviour legislation, but the new powers will allow authorities to evict people from their homes if they are making life an absolute misery for people in their local communities. Despite the fact that some people have described those powers as a gimmick, I think that they will be used and will make an important difference, as is the case with the ability to close down   crack houses and houses used for drug dealing. The reason that antisocial behaviour measures are increasingly being used is that they are increasingly effective where used.

Peter Luff: I   agreed with the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee, when he told me that
	the reorganisation of local police is something where it really is sensible to listen to local people.
	However, a uniquely detailed public consultation[Interruption.] I will read that again for the benefit of the Prime Minister, because I do not think that he heard it properly. He said that
	the reorganisation of local police is something where it really is sensible to listen to local people.
	A uniquely detailed public consultation by the West Mercia police authority revealed overwhelming public opposition to a merged west midlands police force. If the   Prime Minister meant what he said, will he ask the Home Secretary to set aside his support for a merged force and open his mind to alternatives that would meet his strategic objectives?

Tony Blair: It is important that we listen to local people, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so. Of course, many different things could happen, including forces coming together for certain strategic tasks that they are better able to fulfil on a common, rather than singular, basis. I can assure him, however, that we will listen carefully to what people say, including in his constituency.

Chris Ruane: On Monday this   week, I attended the funeral of 14-year-old Tom   Harland, one of the four cyclists killed in the worst cycling accident in British history. Will the Prime Minister join me in extending sympathy to all the families of those who died. My right hon. Friend the   Secretary of State for Wales has asked for a report into the accident. Will the Prime Minister ensure that if lessons can be learned from this tragic accident they will be learned and that practices and procedures will be changed?

Tony Blair: I would like to express, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of those who were so tragically killed. I understand that there is a continuing police investigation, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has asked for a full report, and will visit the site himself. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will learn whatever lessons are necessary to learn, and act upon them.

David Cameron: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister's remarks about the dreadful accident to which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) referred? On climate change, Government Departments have a target for getting 10 per cent. of their energy from renewable sources? Given that five of the biggest Departments were meeting that target before it was set, could the Prime Minister be a little more ambitious?

Tony Blair: To be fair, we are being immensely ambitious on renewables. We have placed an obligation on energy suppliers to supply increasing proportions of energy from renewables, which will be worth something like 1 billion to the renewable industry by 2010. In addition, we are providing 500 million over the next few years to help to develop renewable and low-carbon technologies, and we have a target of 10 per cent. renewable generation by 2010 and 20 per cent. by 2020. Renewables capacity has increased by 9 per cent. in the past couple of years alone. Therefore, with respect, we are being highly ambitious.

David Cameron: I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, but targets for Government Departments are something over which he has control and about which he could be more ambitious[Hon. Members: How?] Hon. Members shout How?, but the answer is pretty obviousby raising them. The National Audit Office said that the Government policy was not stretching and the Environmental Audit Committee said that it was bizarre and highly unsatisfactory. In advance of next week's energy review, what is the Prime Minister planning to do about the fact that carbon emissions from Government Departments have gone up and continue to rise?

Tony Blair: Of course we want to make sure that Government Departments have stretching targets, which are, indeed, in place, and it is always important to examine how they can be increased. If we are talking about carbon emissions overall, however, that involves not simply Government Departments but the whole country. If we are to reduce carbon emissions, one important way of doing so is the climate change levy, which will save 3.7 million tonnes of carbon by 2010. It   is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman's spokesman said yesterday that his party is still against the climate change levy. I know that the right hon. Gentleman also has a proposal, to which he has committed the Conservative party, for a statutory reduction in carbon emissions every year, monitored by an independent body. I must say to him that he should think through carefully the consequences of that policy, because in some years, for all sorts of reasons, such as the weather, carbon emissions might go up, and he would then have to increase fuel taxes significantly. He   should therefore think through his opposition to us on the climate change levy, which is working, and his support for a policy that I would say is a trifle dodgy, although I understand the motives behind it. If we consider his environmental policy, where it is sensible it is in agreement with the Government's, and where it is not in agreement with the Government's, it is not sensible.

Jim Dobbin: Thankfully, people are living longer, but with increasing life expectancy comes increasing demand for improved social care. Next Wednesday, I   will have the privilege of introducing a ten-minute Bill   on palliative care for the terminally ill, and last November the NHS Confederation published a paper asking for wider access to palliative care. Does the Prime   Minister agree that despite increased investment in the hospice movement, extended care is essential for the protection of vulnerable and elderly people?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the forthcoming White Paper on community health and primary care might offer some support for what he says. We are also investing about 12 million in an end-of-life palliative care proposal, which will help people to get access to such care. He is absolutely right in what he says, and let me take this opportunity to commend the hospice movement once again for all its superb work.

Elfyn Llwyd: On the issue of respect, does the Prime Minister respect the views of General Sir Michael Rose, who believes that he should be impeached for his role in the Iraq debacle?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with him, obviously, for reasons that will not surprise him. I think the great thing about a democracy is that people are entitled to different views, but I must tell Sir Michael, and indeed the hon. Gentleman, that I think it is also a great thing when 10 million or more Iraqis vote in a   democratic election for the first time. If we are under pressure in Iraq from people who are trying to stop them from having a democracy, our job is to stand up for the democrats against the terrorists and insurgents. I think, with respect, that that is the right position.

Laura Moffatt: Well over 1,000 homes in Crawley have been insulated under the warm front scheme. Provision ranges from simple insulation to full central heating. Older people are cosy in their homes, and young people are able to study, play and achieve their potential. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such measures are real ways of reducing poverty, rather than just talking about it like the Opposition?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not merely that so many people have benefited from the warm front programme; in 1996 some 4 million households suffered from fuel poverty, and that has now fallen to 1 million. In many cases that is a result of measures taken by the Government, particularly the additional help for families on low incomes and for pensioners. It is an excellent example, along with the new deal for the unemployed, of social justice in action, not theory.

Richard Bacon: The Prime Minister could not explain the reasons for the police computer delay in answer to an earlier question. Why, then, should we believe what he says about identity cards, given that they are above all else a Government computer project?

Tony Blair: They are not simply a Government computer project. I have just given the reasons for identity cards in replying to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. If we note the number of occasions on which people require identification to gain access to servicesnot just in respect of Government, but in respect of their private sector transactionsit is obvious that in today's world, a proper source of identity provides a very important way of achieving greater efficiency

Richard Bacon: What about the computer project?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should let the Prime Minister answer. [Interruption.] I am not responsible for the content of the answers. I cannot allow an hon. Member to question the Prime Minister and then shout across the Chamber.

Tony Blair: On the subject of computer technology, let me say that it is not as if, in respect of either passports or identity throughout the western world, there are not well-tried systems for identity cards. The Conservative party must make up its mind about whether its real objection to identity cards is based on civil libertiesan objection which I think is completely misplaced. What the Conservatives are really doing is raising issues related to computer technology as a smokescreen for their true opposition, which I think is completely out of touch with the instincts of the British people.

David Winnick: If the leaked reports are accurate, and the telephones of Members of Parliament are to be tappedwhich represents a change of policy after some 40 years, and I hope that the reports are not accuratewill my right hon. Friend pledge that before any change is made, there will be a proper debate and vote in the House of Commons? Constitutional issues are involved, and I hope my right hon. Friend recognises that.

Tony Blair: I can tell my hon. Friendthis may help other Members as wellthat at some point we will present a proposal. We have already said that, and parliamentary answers have been given.
	Let me make one thing absolutely clear. The reason why this is an issue has nothing to do withas has been reportedmy desire to tap Members' phones in the wake of terrorism, Iraq or anything else. It is an issueand I hope that we can have a proper discussion about this across the Housebecause of the recommendations of the intercept commissioner. I am obliged to reflect on   those recommendations, and I will reflect on them. I   will obviously discuss them with colleagues, and we will present proposals when we are ready.

John Redwood: How does selection according to aptitude in modern languages differ from selection according to academic ability in modern languages?

Tony Blair: The reasons have been given by the Department for Education and Skills and the Select Committee on Education and Skills for many years. I   hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join usand, now, his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr.   Cameron)in saying that up to 10 per cent. selection according to aptitude in specialist schools is fine, but condemning a return to academic selection.

Hugh Bayley: Has the Prime Minister seen the report from Sheffield Hallam university, published today, which shows that the Government's policies for tackling antisocial behaviour are working? Does he agree that reducing crime and antisocial behaviour is possible when there is a good partnership between statutory and voluntary bodies, such as the partnership between the police and Walmgate residents in York, which drove drug dealers off the local streets? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that such joint working is happening in many of our hon. Friends' constituencies, and that it is not at all a gimmick, as the Leader of the Opposition claims?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend will have noticed the ridicule heaped on antisocial behaviour legislation by the Conservatives. Of course, the report to which he refers indicates that there were massive changes as a result of those powers being used. Families reported a   great reduction in antisocial behaviour because of the eviction of those who were causing real trouble in local neighbourhoods. I have to say to the Conservatives, who seem to be against this antisocial behaviour legislation, that again, they are completely out of touch with the British people. The fact is that people in local   communities believe that there should be certain rules, that a certain amount of order should apply in   those communities, and that those who consistently fail to show respect and responsibility towards others should be dealt with. Where summary powers such as on-the-spot fines, antisocial behaviour orders, dispersal orders and the ability to evict people who are causing a nuisance in local neighbourhoods are used, they work. They should be used more often, and they should have the support of all Members of this House.

Bill Wiggin: The Prime Minister will be aware that when cattle fail the TB   test, they need to be destroyed. However, why, when an error may have occurred, is there no appeal process and no opportunity for the farmer to be heard? Instead, verbal bullying, threats and intimidation have been levelled at a constituent of mine, Mrs. Booton. I   wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 5 December and I still have not had a reply. Will the Prime Minister investigate these appeals? I am worried that, if people do not co-operate, the Government's policy for sorting out this disease will be seriously undermined.

Tony Blair: I know that proposals are being introduced to deal with bovine TB. Obviously, I do not know about the particular incident that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I am perfectly happy to look into it, discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and get back to him.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Skinner.

Dennis Skinner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speakerit is like Christmas day, birthday and Boxing day all rolled into one. Earlier, my right hon. Friend was being challenged on the question of carbon emissions. Will he take into account that one reason why carbon emissions increased was that, when the Tories were in power, they closed down the clean technology plant in Yorkshire? Will he ensure that we keep on board the few pits that remain? Is he aware that an attempt is being made to get a loan to save 288 jobs at Harworth colliery? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sat next to him? All that Harworth wants is a guaranteed loan, and those jobs can be secured. Is he playing?

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that, whatever the problem, the origins always lie with the Conservative party. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry is looking carefully at the application submitted by that colliery. I cannot give him an answer now, but I will certainly look into the matter.

John Penrose: Will the Prime Minister please arrange an urgent review of the financial settlement for NHS dentistry funding in Weston-super-Mare? As he undertakes that review, will he bear it in mind that the vast majority of adult provision of such dentistry in Weston-super-Mare is undertaken by just one practice, which deals with 22,000 patients, and that it has been told that, starting this April, it will have to cut patient numbers by 30 per cent.?

Tony Blair: I understand that this is a problem and of course, one reason why we are trying to get more dentists into the NHS is precisely in order to   deal with it. I am afraid that, in the end, as a result of the contract, which was made in 1990, we cannot force dentists to come back in and to provide NHS services. But we are doing our best to recruit more NHS dentists, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in that.

Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Opposition have tabled a number of amendments to the   Work and Families Bill. Despite their so-called willingness to stand up to big business, are they not scared of family-friendly policies, and is that not   corroborated by today's Financial Times?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Opposition. I think that he is on the record as saying that.

Richard Taylor: If he has not done so already, will the Prime Minister find time to read at least the summary of the report from the Health Select Committee on primary care trusts? If he agrees with the thrust of the summary, will he try to persuade Ministers in the Department of Health that the proposed reorganisation of the NHS, the 25th since 1982, is the wrong one at the wrong time?

Tony Blair: I do not think that it is the wrong time to consider these matters, given the shift to practice-based commissioning and payment by results. It is important that we look at the right way to configure the PCTs, and that is something that people are consulting on. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituencyand, after all, he has a special interest in the matterthat there has been major investment in health care over recent years. Contrary to some of the publicity today, the result of that investment is the fact that waiting lists are at the lowest level since 1988. Also, many people who used to wait two years for an operation now get it within months.

Paddy Tipping: Although real progress was made last year towards making poverty history, the results of the World Trade Organisation discussions in Hong Kong were disappointing. What steps is my right hon. Friend going to take to give impetus to the process, so that we can move towards fair trade?

Tony Blair: We are in discussion with our principal allies, in Europe, America and elsewhere, about how we push the WTO talks on. It is important that the offer in those talks is bold and ambitious. The talks are about trade and services, as well as agriculture. We need Europe and America, as well as the emerging countries such as Brazil and India, to do more in terms of opening up their markets. The benefits of a successful trade round for all of us, not just the poorest people in the world, will be considerable. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do all that we can to achieve that.

Points of Order

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time, the Prime Minister appeared to give credence to reports, which previously I had thought were stuff and nonsense, on the interception of communications or contacts with MPs. He said he would reflect on the matter. Does not this matter touch on parliamentary privilege? If such interceptions were performed within the precincts of the Commons, would it not be a matter for you to reflect on, as well as the Prime Minister? Will you come back to the House with an opinion on that before the Prime Minister decides to intercept our communications, whether for reasons of terrorism or because of rebellious Labour Back Benchers?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. I will reflect on what he said, and on what the Prime Minister said. The question places a responsibility on my shoulders, as I cannot discuss security matters on the Floor of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I take the matter very seriously indeed.

Albert Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to get into a lengthy discussion on this matter.

Albert Owen: It is a separate point, Mr. Speaker, of   which I have given your office notice. I seek your advice and guidance in respect of questions tabled by one hon. Member about another hon. Member's constituency. At today's Wales questions, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) asked specifically about the decommissioning and closure of the Wylfa power station in my constituency. That has caused great concern to many local companies and people. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman, who told me that he submitted the question on the instructions of his Whip, but what is your guidance on this matter? Will you also advise me about hon. Members visiting other hon. Members' constituencies?

Mr. Speaker: In another life, I was a Back Bencher, and I did not listen to the Whips all that often. Perhaps it is best to lead by example in that respect, but I remain a constituency MP and I understand that sensitivity is required in these matters. When an hon. Member asks a question about another constituency, he should contact the relevant Member of Parliament. He might be asking the question for national policy reasons, and I understand that in this case the question was to do with nuclear power. We need to be sensitive about these matters, but that should not deny any Member of Parliament the opportunity to ask a question about something in another hon. Member's constituency. Every hon. Member likes to protect their constituency and their rights within it.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I much appreciate the points that you have made in reply to the point of order about the possibility of wire tapping being reintroduced for Members of Parliament. I have said to the Prime Minister that I consider that a constitutional issue. I am very pleased indeed with your response on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I repeat that I have a responsibility for this House and the privileges and rights of its Members.

Rehabilitation Leave

John Robertson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide a statutory right to rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people, and for people whose existing impairments have changed; and for connected purposes.
	In line with the Government's welfare to work agenda, the Bill aims to ensure that people who develop a disability during their working lives, or whose existing disability deteriorates, are supported to remain in employment where reasonably practicable. In particular, it provides a statutory right for newly disabled employees to have their employment capacity and support needs properly assessed and addressed, and, in addition, where necessary, to have a period of leave to adapt and undergo rehabilitation and retraining before returning to work.
	Let me give an example of the kind of person I want to help. This is an actual case. Michael works for a firm in the electronics testing industry. About six years ago, he started to lose his sight. He wanted to keep working, and his employers valued his skills. RNIB Scotland provided advice on how to reorganise his work and apply the latest technology. The Government's access to work scheme met most of the costs. Now aged 30, he is still working for the company, in a slightly different job, but still using his IT expertise.
	The type of job-retention policy that the Bill deals with is known as rehabilitation leave, or sometimes disability leave. The use of leave helps make it clear that the person in question wants to get back to work. It is explicitly identified as an example of reasonable adjustment in the code of practice relating to part 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is also a feature of the Warwick agreement, with which the Government and the trade union movement agree. Rehabilitation leave is, moreover, a tried and tested policy, having been piloted by a number of high-profile private employers in the public sector.
	Why, then, is there a need for the Bill, and what difference would its passage make? Quite simply, it is needed for two reasons. First, unemployment among disabled people in this country remains stubbornly and appallingly high. Secondly, it is illogical to support disabled people to get off benefit and into employmenta policy I agree withwhile at the same time allowing those in work who develop a disability to join, needlessly, the ranks of the pensioned-off or those on incapacity benefit.
	Disabled people are almost five times more likely than non-disabled people to be out of work and claiming benefits. The UK's employment rate among blind and partially sighted people, for example, is a staggering 75 per cent. An estimated 3,000 people additionally join the dole queue each year because they develop a sight problem while still in employment.
	Yet so much expert support and equipment is available to assist employees and employers alike, much of it available under existing Government programmes, such as the access to work scheme. The Bill would ensure that employees and employers are supported at the critical time when they need itnamely, at the onset of a disability and while the newly disabled person is still employed. The alternative, which unnecessarily befalls tens of thousands of newly disabled people each year, is for them to lose their job. That often happens because the employer does not know what support is available or because they have not had much experience of dealing with disabilities among employees and so are understandably fearful.
	When someone is coping with a disability, they need help and support. We must not fail them. To become unemployed in those circumstances is a human and an economic tragedy. It undermines the individual's confidence, risks skills becoming out of date, and often leads to long periods of unemployment. Many disabled people never return to work. That results in a drain on the state, it burdens pension funds and represents a significant loss of expertise to industry, not to mention the additional recruitment costs for employers to replace staff.
	Sometimes legislation is needed to ensure that good sense and best practice prevail. The law on wearing seat belts is perhaps a good example. This Bill is both sensible and necessary. None the less, I freely accept that the Government will have to develop some existing schemes, such as access to work, to ensure that at least some of the costs of the employment assessment, and any reasonable adjustment measures required, can be offset by the employer.
	The Government will also need to ensure that state benefits are temporarily payable to those employees who may not receive wages or sick pay from their employer during a period of rehabilitation leave. I   believe that, at relatively little cost, the Government will be able to ensure that any regulatory burden on employers resulting from this Bill is kept to a minimum.
	There will of course be times when the nature of a disability, or of a particular workplace, will mean that it is unreasonable or even impossible to expect that a newly disabled person can remain in their current job, or even be redeployed. Rehabilitation leave is not a job guarantee scheme. The law of reasonableness will still apply. But surely it is sensible to give a newly disabled employee the right to have their circumstances properly assessed and a chance to adjust so that they can continue in employment if possible. Are we not morally honour-bound to help and support the people of this country into employment? My Government have put that at the centre of their policies over the last eight, nearly nine, years. I ask them to continue those policies and take another step forward and support this Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John Robertson, Mr. Tom Harris, Mrs. Iris Robinson, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Ian Davidson, Rosemary McKenna, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, Mr. David Hamilton, Ms Dari Taylor, Hywel Williams and Julie Morgan.

Rehabilitation Leave

John Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to provide a statutory right to rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people, and for people whose existing impairments have changed; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 114].

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order [15 December 2005],
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will re-appoint as Electoral Commissioners, with effect from 19th January 2006:
	  (1) Jonathan Glyn Mathias for the period of two years; and
	  (2) Sukhminder Karamjit Singh CBE for the period of four years.[Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to

Orders of the Day
	  
	Work and Families Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	  
	Administration of statutory leave payments

'The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing that any employer employing fewer than 50 persons may transfer to the Secretary of State responsibility for the administration of payments to that person's employees of
	(a)   statutory maternity pay,
	(b)   adoption pay,
	(c)   additional statutory paternity pay, and
	(d)   ordinary paternity pay.'. [Norman Lamb.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Lamb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	Although we strongly support the purposes of the Bill as a package, we must recognise its impact on employers, especially small employers. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that its impact on employers is kept to a minimum. That has clearly been the Government's view, which they have expressed at various times.
	The Government's 10-year strategy for child care, published at the same time as the pre-Budget report in 2004, made a commitment to consider the case for what the Revenue document, with which the Government have provided us, described as direct paymenta term I shall use in making the case for the new clause. Their starting point suggests that they saw the possible benefits of direct payment. Indeed, Labour's manifesto repeated the commitment to help employers. It made a commitment to increase paid maternity leave
	while simplifying the system for employers.
	That commitment has been constantly stated.
	The paper from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which the Government have helpfully supplied, refers to   the consultation that took place in the run-up to publication of the Bill. It talks about meetings with a consultation panel to discuss the issue; the panel included payroll experts and representatives from small and large employers. Interestingly, the Government's paper confirms that the employer representatives on that panel, in essence, support the new clause. They recognised that concern was greatest among small employers and that large employers did not want to introduce direct payment, as it would cause them unnecessary complexity and they would prefer to administer the system themselves. They recognised that there would be benefits for some small employers. The paper and common sense suggest that the benefits would be felt most by employers who still use manual payroll systems, where the process for making payments is more time-consuming than in an automated system.
	The paper confirms that if a system were introduced based on the provisions of the new clause, or something akin to them, the cost of its introduction would be reduced. It gives a figure for start-up costs of 38 millionrather than 75 millionfor a simple system, directed to assist small employers who choose to transfer responsibility to the Government. The paper accepts that the ongoing yearly costs would inevitably be substantially less than the 50 million it cites.

Gerry Sutcliffe: If we accept the figure of 38 million that the hon. Gentleman gives, what benefit to small business would accrue each year?

Norman Lamb: The paper refers to a total net benefit of 1.1 million. The figure for small employers, defined by the national insurance contribution threshold of 45,000 a year, would be about 400,000 a year, but the benefit would be focused on employers whose costs are much greater than averagethose who decide that it is in their interests to transfer the administration to the Government, presumably because they have manual systems that they judge will take too much time to administer themselves. So the paper nowhere identifies how much that would benefit those employers whom the new clause would help.

Helen Jones: What estimate can the hon. Gentleman give of the number of   employers who would wish to transfer their responsibilities in the way that is suggested in the new clause?

Norman Lamb: I cannot give an estimate of the number, and it is not necessary to do so to make the case. The HMRC document confirms the fact that the employers' representatives on the Government's consultation panel advocated a system that would allow the right to transfer responsibility to the Government to   be focused particularly on small employers. In essence, the new clause builds on the case put by the employers' representatives on the Government's panel and recognises the fact that large employers see no benefit in the proposed system. They are left out of the equation. The focus is simply on those employers who would benefit by transferring the system to the Government.
	According to the HMRC paper, small employers said that they would benefit. The paper also correctly recognises that every employer is differentemployers have different payroll methodsso rather than simply seeking to transfer the responsibility for all payments to the Government, the new clause would give employees the power to decide whether they want to take advantage of the right. Under the new clause, we seek to recognise the facts that are set out in the HMRC document by excluding large employers, who would not benefit, from the right to transfer.
	The paper also confirms that approximately 40,000 women employed by small employersthose employers who make national insurance contributions of up to 45,000 per annumare in receipt of statutory maternity pay. I cannot begin to estimate the cost of the Government employing an administration to operate on the opt-in principle dealt with in the new clause, but if we are talking about a total of 40,000 women and only a proportion of their employers choose to transfer, I can imagine that the size of the unit that would be required to administer the system for the Government could be very limited and therefore could be provided at vastly lower cost than that set out in the HMRC paper. The paper itself concedes that the costs would be significantly lower when dealing with an opt-in system of the sort that we recommend.
	I have already dealt with the net savings, but I want to say a word about whether we can rely on the figures set out in the Government's paper. We all accept that any regulatory impact assessment is inevitably only an estimate, because it considers what would happen in the future. There must inevitably be doubt about how accurate those estimates are likely to be in practice. The concern of many in the small business community is that the paper underestimates the time taken to administer those arrangements, particularly by small employers who operate manual systems.
	The paper obviously considers average times for employers, but the new clause focuses on those small employers with manual systems who are trying to cope with everything, who do not have a director dedicated to   dealing with payroll and staff issues and where a one-man or one-woman operation is trying to keep the whole show on the road, as well as dealing with all this. In those cases, learning and understanding what is involved in the payment of maternity or paternity pay, when the employer may not have had someone in that situation for some years, is a time-consuming operation. It is very easy to underestimate the burden that that imposes on employers. If that burden can be lifted and transferred to the Governmentas they clearly envisage would be appropriate, provided that the costs are not too highit seems right to do so.

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is recognised in the 104.5 per cent. that can be returned to small businesses. That percentage contains an element to meet those costs.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. Page 2 of the HMRC paper states that the additional 4.5 per cent. is intended to compensate businesses for the employers' national insurance contributions.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Well?

Norman Lamb: The point is that that part of the scheme will not do what the Minister says it will do: it is not intended to cover the cost of administering the scheme. Given that he clearly understands that there is a case for ensuring that an element of the payment covers the administration costs, if he rejects the new clause will he consider increasing the percentage repayment as an alternative? I am happy to give way if he would like to intervene.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not want to take all the hon. Gentleman's time, and we will have a great deal of time for the debates this afternoon. I want to emphasise the point that the Government acknowledge the position of small businesses. I think that a lot of the hon. Gentleman's information relies on the brief issued by the CBI, and we have told the CBI that we will be prepared to talk to small businesses and to ask them how we can help them to administer what we know is a culture change in the Bill.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. If we can take them as a willingness to consider the possibility of increasing the percentage repayment, I am sure that small business would be delighted to hear that. I am not entirely convinced that he has that in mind, even though he has indicated that   he thought that the payment included something to cover the cost of administration.

Alan Reid: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because the 104.5 per cent. figure is based on a certain level of employers' national insurance contributions, it will often apply to employers with about 15 or 16 employees, whereas the extra money will not apply to those employers with between 15 and 50 employees who would be covered by the new clause?

Norman Lamb: Yes. A very limited benefit will apply to only the very smallest employers. As my hon. Friend rightly says, many employers in the category caught by the new clause, who would benefit from the right to transfer responsibility back to the Government, will get no assistance in covering NI contributions and only 92 per cent. of statutory maternity pay back from the Government. If the Government are not prepared to go down the route that we suggest, they should consider whether they are prepared to increase the percentage repaid to employers.
	I am not sure whether HMRC's assessment adequately takes into account the cash-flow benefits for small employers in not having to make the payment in the first place. At the moment, every week, they must pay the woman on maternity leave or the man on paternity leave. If the responsibility were transferred to the Government, those payments would not come from small employers' systems at all. I am not sure of the repayment time at the momentit would be helpful if the Minister could confirm itbut a cash-flow burden is imposed on businesses for the period that the money is   out of their systems. Those businesses would be assisted if the Government took over responsibility for making the payments. I do not think that the assessment made by HMRC adequately takes that into account.
	HMRC's calculation takes account of the fact that many employers have complex remuneration packages because of pension contributions and so on. It says that all those burdens remain with the employer, but the remuneration packages of most small employers are much simpler than those of large employers, so the burdens would not be relevant if they were not part of the remuneration package in the first place.
	The Government's response is to try to solve everything by handing out a CD-ROM to employersthat is their get-out-of-jail card. They will also provide employers with a teach yourself package that will give them everything that they need to administer the system. However, the Government do not understand that the voluminous guidance that comes out of the Department of Trade and Industry in itself puts an administrative and regulatory burden on employers. In my previous life as an employment lawyer, I was constantly aware that employers were swamped by teach yourself guides and guidance notes on how to interpret regulations, such as the working time directive. Small companies are struggling to maintain their businesses, let alone do all the administration that goes with that, but the Government want to give them yet another teach yourself guide and burden. The proposal is not the panacea that the Government think that it is.
	I have outlined the thinking behind new clause 1. I   realise that the Government have stated an intent to help businesses, especially small businesses, to deal with the new burdens on them. However, we have seen little action to back up that intent. The Minister looks distressed by what I say, but it is the truth. Little has been done through the Bill to ease the burden on employers. In a nutshell, the assessment by HMRC understates the costs for employers. If we had the opt-in system about which we are talking, the cost to the Government would be significantly less. I know that the   Minister is a reasonable man, so I hope that he will accept our arguments and that there will be no need to divide the House.

Eleanor Laing: We want the Bill to work, which is why we have joined the Liberal Democrats in tabling new clause 1. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) explained eloquently and thoroughly the reasoning behind it, and we also discussed the matter at some length in Committee. He has cited all the statistics and arithmetical reasons that explain why we think that the Bill would be considerably improved with the addition of new clause 1 and I will not repeat his argumentsI   agreed with what he said.
	We understand that if the Bill is to work, its measures must have the confidence of those who will be affected by it. I am especially worried, as ever, about burdens on small businesses. Again and again, the Government bring forward ideas. Those ideas are sometimes good in principle, as is the case with the Bill. The Bill's intention of improving the work-life balance not only for parentsboth mothers and fathersbut for people with caring responsibilities is good, but as ever, the Government will not take responsibility for administering their proposals. They expect, and indeed require, others to do so, and in this case, as in so many other cases, those others will be small businesses.

Mark Prisk: I   hate to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but does she realise that the people to whom she just referred are also parents? The irony of the Government's position is that self-employed parents might be able to spend less time with their families because of the administrative burden that we are debating.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is correct. It is undoubtedly true that when we talk about helping parents and carers, and thus improving matters for children, we are talking about all families in the country. Some families consist of employees, while others consist of employers. No one is suggesting that they should be treated differently. We want to improve matters for all families, so my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point.
	As ever, the matter comes down to a question of balance. New clause 1 would help small businesses considerably by taking away from them the burden of administering maternity and paternity leave and pay. It would thus be easier for small businesses to concentrate on the matter on which they should concentrate: in a nutshell, making money. Time is money for a small business person. If employers have to spend more time than is necessary on administrative matters, they are, by definition, spending less time on running the business and making a profit. If a business makes a profit, it allows more jobs to be created and, perhaps, the payment of bonuses to employees. It is in everyone's interest that businesses run efficiently and well. The days of employers taking everything out of a business and employees putting in all the effort are gonewell, we hope that it does not happen any more, at least in 99 per cent. of cases. Most good employers know that if they treat their employees well, they will have a better work force and thus better businesses.
	We return to the question of balance. Most people in Britain today are employed not by large businesses and multinationals, but by small businesses. What happens to small businesses thus has a knock-on effect on most employees. If employers spend too much time on administration, their businesses suffer and become less profitable, which might mean that they have to make employees redundant, or not take on more employees. A successful business will create employment and provide better conditions for employees, and a business is more likely to be successful if the administrative burden is removed from it.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a dichotomy in the Government's position? They are unwilling to accept new clause 1, but on Second Reading, at column 645 of Hansard on 5 December 2005, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the Government estimated that the new provisions would affect only a small number of small businesses. One thus wonders why they are not willing to accept the reasonable measure that we are considering.

Eleanor Laing: I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was about to mention the cost question, the Minister will not be surprised to hear.
	In Standing Committee A, on 13 December, at column 53 of Hansard, when we were debating an amendment about the central administration of benefits and statutory pay, the Minister gave us some remarkable figures. He said that the cost to small businesses would be in the region of 400,000 a year. That is quite low, and if that were to be the cost, it would be reasonable. Yet the cost to Government, the Minister told us, of doing exactly the same would be 75 million in start-up costs and 15 million annually. I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister gave those figures in anything other than good faith, but I am amazed, and have been since 13 December. Where do those figures come from? The difference between 400,000 and 15 million is enormous, and it beggars belief that the figures can be accurate.
	I do not believe that 400,000 would be the effective annual cost to small businesses throughout Britain. It must be much, much higher. When we pass the Bill, as I   hope we do, we shall be asking businesses to take on an even greater task than they have at present, and give more and more flexibility to their employees. I agree with that in principle. It is right that maternity arrangements and pay should be as advantageous as possible because, as a society and an economy, we need women to do two jobs. We need them to produce children and we need them to be economically active in the work force.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady referred to the figure of 400,000 as the cost for small businesses and made the point that it may well be much higher. Is not the issue also the rather unquantifiable time that it takes someone who is trying to cope with everything to deal with this burden on top?

Eleanor Laing: Yes, and that is exactly the point that I   am about to make. We are asking businesses to give extra flexibility to their employees. That means that we are asking them to make administrative arrangements for people to be away from their work duties. We support that; it is right. Families need that time; children, particularly new babies, need that time. I know personally that it is vital, as I seem to be running around in circles. This is my son's first week at real school, and I am trying to take him there in the morning and pick him up in the afternoon, although I will not be there this afternoon. We are fortunate. We have great flexibility in our hours herethey are long hours but they are quite flexible. If we have that privilege, so should as many other employees in the country as possible. I am completely in favour of that.
	We are, however, asking an employer, first, to make arrangements to provide that flexibility, and secondly to administer a replacement employee, perhaps from an agency, to do the work that is not being done by the person on leave. We are asking the employer to pay money to the employee, and to go through a further administrative form-filling experience of claiming it back from the Government and then balancing the accounts. The hon. Member for North Norfolk made the cash-flow point very well. Instead of a very simple arrangement between employer and employee for the   payment of wages, tax and national insurance, the situation becomes much more complicated, and it all takes time. As I said before, to an employer or small business man, time is money. The very effectiveness of the businesses that we are trying to encourage and support is threatened by what we are asking them to do in the Bill.
	In new clause 1, we recognise that we are asking businesses to take on extra burdens because that is right for the economy, society and families, good for employers and businesses, and good for employees, so the Government ought to help in the administration of   that burden. The Government promised to be deregulatorythat is the biggest joke I have ever heard. The Chancellor makes speeches about deregulation; the Government count the regulations and say how many there should be. My understandingthe Minister will correct me if I am wrongis that if a new regulation is introduced, some other regulation has to be abolished to keep the regulatory burden balanced. That is certainly not happening. The Chancellor likes to talk about these things, but in reality that is not what the Government are doing for the employers and employees in UK businesses.

Michael Jabez Foster: It is enormously difficult to decide what regulation to get rid of when another is introduced. The hon. Lady has said what a good idea these regulations are. Can she give an example of a regulation that she would get rid of, to help us out?

Eleanor Laing: Yesexactly what new clause 1 proposes. The entire content of my speech is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I propose that as we require an extra burden to be put on businesses by the regulations on maternity and paternity leave being introduced by the Bill, we should at the same time remove from small businesses the burden of administering those regulations.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I read with interest the Financial Times this morning, which says, Tories back concerns over parental leave. The hon. Lady was quoted as saying that she was concerned about fathers taking days off. Is she saying that, contrary to what her party said on Second Reading and in Committee, it does not accept the culture change and principles underlying the Bill because the Government are not prepared to consider one aspect of the issuedirect payments?

Eleanor Laing: Not at allfar from it. I did not think that I was wrongly quoted in the Financial Times; I   thought that it was a well-balanced explanation of the situation, although I admit that I have not yet read it, so I will have to check it very soon. I am utterly consistent with everything that my hon. Friends and I said in Committee. We entirely back the principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) asked me a pertinent question: if a regulation is to be brought in, which one would we take out? As I   said, all this is a question of balance. We are asking small businesses to take on extra burdens, and it is the Government's responsibility to help them with those burdens. It is simply not fair to expect small businesses to do the Government's work of collecting taxes and paying out benefits. That is what the civil service is for.

Michael Jabez Foster: Is the hon. Lady simply talking about who should pay for the regulations, rather than whether the regulations should be introduced? I thought that she was arguing that certain regulations were unnecessary. However, she now seems to be arguing about who should pay. What substantive regulations would she get rid of?

Eleanor Laing: It is not just a question of who pays; it is a question of who administers the regulations. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. Theoretically, the provisions in the Bill should not cost small businesses anything, because they will be reimbursed for the statutory maternity and paternity pay that they pay out. They could choose to pay additional maternity and paternity pay, but that would depend on the business, and on the contract between a particular employer and   employee. The issue is one of who does the administration involved.
	The Government continually fail to recognise this problem. We are the party of small business, and we do recognise it. I can still hear my father complaining, as he sat up late into the nightoften past midnightyear after year, filling in forms and administering the part of his business that he was required to administer by the Government. This was at its worst under the Labour Government of the 1970s, when there was a recession in the building industry. I will never forget the effect that that had on my father and the rest of our family, or the enormous strain caused by the Government's imposing great difficulties on small businesses. It is not difficult to   run a business, but it is difficult to keep all the   regulations straight and do everything that the Government require. That is mostly what makes businesses go out of business, and I do not want to see that happening.
	The intentions of the Bill are good, and I can confirm, in answer to the Minister's question, that whatever the Financial Times says, we back the intent of the Bill. We are in favour of the really good provisions that it contains, because they will help families, employees and employers alike. However, we want the new regulations to work properly, and it is simply unfair to impose extra burdens on small businesses. They are the lifeblood of our economy and our society, and they must be helped, protected and nurtured, not burdened by extra red tape, regulations and costs.

Michael Weir: I welcome this opportunity to make a small contribution to this debate. As I said on Second Reading, I support the Bill because it introduces important new rights for workers. However, I also find myself strangely in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs.   Laing) has said about small businesses, although I should gently remind her that I ran a small business during the 1980s and 1990s, and regulation under the previous Conservative Government was every bit as bad as under any Labour Government. Whoever is in power, the amount of regulation for small businesses never seems to get any less.
	My experience of running a small business leads me to support the new clause. I was surprised, however, to see that it stipulates the figure of 50 employees, as any business employing that many people would be considered relatively large in my neck of the woods these days, given the direction that the rural economy has taken over the past few years. Before I was elected to the House, I ran a small business as a country solicitor, and I recognise the hon. Lady's description of her father's frustration. The reality of running such a business is that employers do not do the VAT, the tax and the PAYE between the hours of 9 to 5 while they are in the office. That is when they try to make some money. They do those things in the evenings or at weekends. They go home at night and sit up until midnight, or often later, wrestling with these things. I was a solicitor but I am afraid I never truly got to grips with PAYE.
	The Minister must realise that we are not just talking about tax regulation and maternity and paternity pay. Every business is subject to regulations from many other agencies as well. The cumulative effect of all these regulations, and the amount of time that anyone running a business has to spend dealing with them, will have an impact on that business. In my own case, there were masses of regulations that had built up from the Law Society of Scotland and the Financial Services Authority. Eventually, we decided that it was not worth the candle to go through all that, and that it would be better to junk our financial services business altogether because of the amount of regulation involved. There were good reasons for those regulations, because of what had happened in the financial services industry, but they became a huge burden for small businesses, which were doing their best to provide a service in small-town areas. The time spent dealing with those regulations impacts on a business, because it eats into the time that can be spent doing other things, such as spending time with the family.
	A particular difficulty with these regulations could be the complexity of the interaction between the times when a mother and a father take their maternity and paternity leave. There could be difficulties with dealing with the statutory pay involved. That is another reason for considering ways of making it easier for small businesses to deal with these regulations, because they could get into difficulties if both parents were not working for the same employer. There would have to be interaction between the employers involved, as well as the Inland Revenue, and that could present problems. Transferring the obligation to the Revenue might provide a way round that, but there could still be an inherent difficulty if one party were with the Revenue and the other were not.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman is describing the reason why we want to consult on how to deal with the   additional paternity leave. We shall do that, and we shall have discussions with small businesses about the issue. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about regulation in general, rather than the direct payments proposed in the Bill. Does he consider a benefit of 400,000, following an investment of 38 million, to represent value for money for the taxpayer?

Michael Weir: If the figures are correct, it would not appear to do so. I must echo what the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier: the figures seem incredible for what I would have thought to be a relatively simple operation. The Minister says that I am not talking about the specific measures in the Bill, but we cannot divorce those measures from the impact that other regulations have on small businesses. They have a cumulative effect. This might only be a small regulation that we are passingalthough it is an important onebut it will be yet another regulation on top of all the other regulations that businesses have to deal with.
	I accept that there is a need for many of these regulations in the modern world. I do not subscribe to the theory that we should just throw all regulations out of the window. We have to have regulations, but they must be minimised, and we must do everything that we can in that regard when imposing new laws for the social good. The Bill will be for the social good of families, but we must also minimise its impact on business and on those families who run businesses. There could be other ways of achieving that. In my experience, many small businesses now outsource their PAYE and other tax work to local accountants because of the increasing complexity of the work involved. However, there is a cost involved in doing that. The more the accountant has to do, the greater the cost will be. Many small businesses are already struggling to make a livingthere is a pretty hard business environment in some areasand they would not be able to bear such costs.
	I am inclined to support new clause 1. I appreciate that the Minister is going to consult on the provision, but this might not be the best way of dealing with the issue. We must find a way of minimising the impact on small business of these very good policies.

Stewart Jackson: When speaking in this place, it is always a good rule of thumb to speak about something that one is vaguely acquainted with. That is a personal credo which is not always followed by other Members, but I hope to follow it today, as in a previous life I was a business adviser with Business Link. I well remember the days when I would trudge round Europe's   largest industrial estate at Park Royal. As I   would knock on the door and go into those very small micro-businesses, some with fewer than five staff and many with fewer than a dozen staff, the most dread words that I could say were, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help your business.
	That was rather unfair, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the sterling work done by Business Link. It does an excellent job. It is important to recognise the struggle that small businesses face every day to make ends meet. The points about cash flow made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my   hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs.   Laing) are well made. Whether by the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors or the CBI, much comment has been made about the speed and quantity of regulations coming from Government.
	I should like to explain in a wider context why I   support the Bill from a political as well as a personal point of view. To be slightly partisan, I resent the implication that the Labour partythe Governmenthas a monopoly on concern for working people and on care about work-life balance, that amorphous group of policies dealing with quality of life issues. That is not true. My party should not be pigeon-holed as a party that is not progressive, that is not modern, and that is unwilling to look at Britain as it is today, rather than as it was. I strongly support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in that respect.
	Similarly, I am not speaking today as a mouthpiece of big business. To me, big business has good parts and bad parts. The bad parts are supermarkets and banks, which are my own bugbear. But that is not free enterprise and competition. Free enterprise and competition is the invisible hand of Adam Smith, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest no doubt invoked when speaking about her father, a good Fife man.
	We care about working families and we welcome the Bill because we think that in general it will be successful, it will make an impact and it will help with aspects such as bonding between parents, quality time, and nurturing and protecting family life. I say that not because I am some wishy-washy Liberal, although they are in the news this week, but because that is good, practical, economic common sense. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that small business people have families too and they want quality time. If they have mortgaged their house or remortgaged their business and gone cap in hand to the bank, their right to have a family life is important too. We should do everything we can to mitigate the pressures on them.
	I turn to the issue of paternity pay. In Committee the hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) was offended by the fact that men are paid more than women and consequently that paternity pay was an issue. That is a   fact of life. There are cultural issues involved in the non-take-up of paternity rights. Men are often at a higher level in the hierarchy and are better paid than women, and they perceive that their careers will be damaged if they take paternity pay and avail themselves of paternity rights.
	I referred earlier to the dichotomy in the Government's position, and I sense a slight weakening in resolve on the Minister's part with regard to new clause 1. The Government are effectively saying, We are going ahead with paternity rights. We want more men to have that work-life balance, but there are not many of them, so don't worry about it. If that is the case, the Government should consider new clause 1 with an open mind.
	We should be careful about the amount and proximity of regulations coming through to small businesses. There is both anecdotal and empirical evidence suggesting that we should not inadvertently bring about discrimination. If a business is struggling at the margin, business people will look at the legislation coming through and make a judgment about the impact that it will have on them. If the future of the business is a matter of life or death, they may well decide that they do not want to employ a young woman of childbearing age or a younger man. That is discrimination. I make no excuse for it, but if the Government are not sensitive to that degree of regulation and the burden that it places on businesses, they will find that the people they most wish to helpyoung families, mums and dads who have to work to pay the mortgage and meet the costswill be discriminated against.
	I am concerned particularly about paternity rights because I am unsure about the figures. Are they based on social studies, demography or statistics compiled centrally by the Department of Trade and Industry? I   am not clear how straightforward and transparent the figures are and what impact they will have on small and medium-sized enterprises. For instance, the indicative estimates of the cost of paternity pay are anywhere between 12 and 21 per cent. That is potentially an 80 per cent. overrun. For the right to request flexible hours, the indicative cost is anywhere between just under 30 million and 120 million, which is a pretty substantial difference. That is a concern to me. One might say flippantly that the figures could have been prepared by the architects of the Scottish Parliament, but I would not go that far.
	The issue is balance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said. We must get the balance right. We all care about making sure that the economy is improved, that businesses grow, and that families are not put under stress to the extent that they disintegrate as a result of getting the work-life balance wrong. None of us wants that. Given that 97 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product is generated by small businesses, many of which are micro-businesses and innovative businesses, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater or crack the golden egg. No more similes.
	I broadly support the Bill. My experience as a business adviser is that where they can, people who run businesses will do their best to comply with regulations if they think they are fair and if they think others are complying with them. If they think the regulations are   unfair and that the Government are not listening to them or their representative organisations, they will avoid them, the scheme will not work, and ultimately the Government will not achieve their aims. With that, I   give the Bill a broad welcome. I hope that when the Minister speaks later, he will address the concerns that I raised today.

Alan Reid: The Bill is important and I welcome the rights that it extends to working families, particularly the rights that relate to the clause, concerning maternity, paternity and adoption pay. However, there is a downside to the Bill, as other hon. Members have pointed outthe extra burden of administration that it will place on employers, especially the owners of small businesses.
	I shall quote from a document that I am sure the Minister is familiar with, the 2005 Labour party manifesto. It states on page 77:
	We will therefore increase paid maternity leave to nine months from 2007worth an extra 1,400with the goal of achieving a year's paid leave by the end of the Parliament while simplifying the system for employers.

Norman Lamb: The CD-ROM!

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is correct. The Government made a commitment to simplify the system for employers, but it seems to consist of a CD-ROM and a do-it-yourself guide. That is not simplifying the system for employers and that is not what employers read into the Labour party manifesto.
	I hope that the Government accept new clause 1, because we are trying to assist them in implementing their manifesto. New clause 1 would transfer responsibility for the administration of payments for maternity, adoption and paternity pay from a person's employer to Revenue and Customs. The procedures involved are complicated, and they will become even more complicated with the introduction of additional paternity pay, because in most cases parents work for different employers, which introduces an extra level of complexity.
	The Government have referred to a cost-benefit analysis produced by HM Revenue and Customs, which claims to show a minimal benefit. However, that cost-benefit analysis considers only statutory maternity pay and does not attempt to examine issues such as adoption pay or paternity pay. Many small business owners challenge the assumptions in the cost-benefit analysisin particular, they take issue with the time that the report assumes that it will take them to perform the necessary tasks. Employers who have examined the report say that it will take them far longer to carry out those tasks than the analysts from Revenue and Customs suggest. It is questionable whether the savings to employers set out by Revenue and Customs will accrue from the transfer of direct payments, and it is also questionable whether the benefits to employers will be as low as the report suggests.
	We need to take account of the great burden on small employers who come across new working procedures for the first time. A big employer with large human resources and IT departments will handle the new processes easily, but a small employer who is faced with working out additional paternity pay for the first time will find that it takes a great deal of time, even with the help of the Government's CD-ROM and do-it-yourself guide. As hon. Members have said, that time is often late at night, and if the employer tries to deal with the matter during the day, it distracts them from trying to grow their business and create jobs.
	New clause 1 states that companies with fewer than 50 employees should be given the choice between running that part of the payroll themselves or transferring it to HM Revenue and Customs, which should be able to run such procedures more easily given the benefits of scale. That would compensate small employersthe Government are giving small employers more work by introducing new rights for workers, and they should help them by taking on that part of the administration. It is vital that we free up small employers to enable them to grow their businesses, and we can do so by giving them a choice on the burden of administration.
	Finally, I remind the Government of their manifesto commitment, which I hope that they honour today.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and other hon. Members who support new clause 1. I am non-executive director of three companies cited in the register, but I am, of course, not speaking on their behalf or at their request.
	The Minister should ask himself two important questions before he asks the House to reject the new clause. The first question has partially emerged in the debate: what has become of the Prime Minister's policy, which is very good, that a regulation should be struck off for every new one that is imposed? No equal and opposite regulation is being struck off to balance today's sizeable one.
	The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest which regulation we would strike off. If he had been present in the House just before Christmas, he would have witnessed my leading for the Opposition from the Front Bench and setting out a wide-ranging deregulatory policy, which includes 63 specific ideas for the Government, and we have sent those ideas to different branches of the Government in the hope that some of them will be incorporated. Indeed, a Minister suggested the beginnings of one such idea in an overnight briefing to the papers, and perhaps the House will have the courtesy of being told whether it is trueit would be nice to feel that as a Member of Parliament, one is sometimes the first to hear such things rather than the last.
	We have identified plenty of regulations that could be struck off to add to the good workings of the British economy and reduce the burden on people and businesses, but they fall outside the scope of the debate on new clause 1. One sometimes wonders whether Ministers belong to the same Government as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made some extremely good speeches, such as his speech on deregulation, but the opposite of what he has said is happening day by day. As has been said, this provision is a good example of something happening in exactly the opposite direction from that set out by the Prime Minister and without the action to balance the situation enjoined by him. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest has made it clear that she supports the proposal, but on the condition that offsetting deregulation, which has not been introduced, takes place.
	The second question about which the Minister should think more carefully concerns cost. It is unsatisfactory that we should debate such an important measure with no credible figures from the Government, and I find it unbelievable that we are discussing a cost of only 400,000. If we examine the Government's assessment of the impact of the legislation, the gross figure for the regulatory impact of the legislation is cited as 575 million a year, if one adds up the highest estimates. The Government say that there could be offsets of 209 million a year against that figure196 million of   those offsets are extremely optimistic, but let us give them to the Government. In short, according to the Government's own regulatory impact assessment, we are discussing about 400 million of extra cost.
	We are being asked to believe that the important part of the cost imposed on small businesses will amount to some 400,000, so it is not worth exempting small businessalthough it will cost the Government a mind-blowing 39 million to deal with the problem, it will save small businesses only 400,000. I know that anything that this Government run is considerably less well run than it would be in the private sectorproductivity is a far bigger problem in the public sector than the private sectorbut it is difficult to believe that they are so monumentally incompetent that they would spend 39 million to save 400,000 a year. I put it to the Minister that the truth of the position is that a bigger element of the 575 million that the Government have identified will be attributable to small business, and that it would therefore be a useful saving for small businesses in implementing the measure to transfer the work burden from them to the Treasury in cases in which small businesses would like that to happen.
	I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and other hon. Friends have in mind an opt-in system, which means that if by any chance the Government are right and there are no real costs to the   measure for small businesses, those small businesses would be happy to administer the measure themselves and the Treasury would not be troubled. However, I   suspect that the measure will involve substantial cost. It would be a very good idea for small businesses for the Treasury to do the work, if we discover that the cost estimates are far from adequate.
	It is fundamental that a Government who claim to believe in deregulation should set out accurate and detailed costings that have weight and carry credibility both with this House and with those outside who are interested in such matters. This is yet another example in which the regulatory impact assessment is on the whole vague and incredible. Where the regulatory impact assessment is specific, it comes up with some very large numbers, which the Government have passed by and cannot explain. We should not ignore the 390 million cost which the regulatory impact assessment states that the Government must pay, which means that the total cost of the measure taking the Government cost and the net private sector cost in the RIA will be around 800 million.
	The Government must remember that they have no money of their own. They have only the money that they collect from us as individuals and from the business community, so the 390 million of so-called Government cost is also a cost on business and individuals who work for those businesses, just as much as the 400 million cost is a direct charge on the private sector.
	I urge the Minister to think again. If he will not, and if he remains inclined to tell hon. Members that he does not want new clause 1, will he please explain when we will have proper figures for the costs and a proper off-set under the terms of the Prime Minister's policy?

Mark Prisk: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, like every other speaker in the debate, supported new clause 1. I trust that the Minister will make it a full house and I look forward to his contribution on that basis.
	New clause 1 is an eminently sensible provision. I do not often associate the Prime Minister with being eminently sensible, but it follows his original idea last year of a one-in, one-out approach to regulation, to which hon. Members have referred.
	The background to the new clause is crucial. The administrative costs of the regulatory burden are especially important to the smaller employer. All hon.   Members recognise that, for a smaller business, the costs are disproportionate to any perceived benefits. Conservative Members support the principle of the Bill, which aims to get the right balance between work and families. That is not questioned. The debate is about how to strike the balance and why the Government's original promise that they would seek to cover the administrative costs aspect of the deal has changed. That is at the heart of the new clause.
	The administrative burden is already becoming difficult for small businesses to bear. The Federation of Small Businesses has highlighted the fact that each small business has to put aside an average of 28 hours a month to comply with Government information requirements and regulations. Given that, according to Government figureswe shall trust them for the purpose of this exercisethere are some 4 million small businesses, that is bad not only for the individual enterprise but for the productivity of the United Kingdom's economy. It cannot be right that so much time is spent on dealing with Government requirements and not on generating wealth.
	Let us imagine what those businesses could achieve without losing that time. They could spend it generating prosperity and especially in employing new people or to generate new products and services. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) highlighted, that time is also lost to the families of those who run small businesses. If we are to be fair and balanced in ensuring that we help families, we cannot ignore the rights of the self-employed mother and father.
	The payroll burden is of especial concern to smaller businesses. Other hon. Members dealt with the administrative burden, so I shall not allude to it in detail. However, there is also the difficulty in a small family business of employers, who may know their staff well, having to ask the difficult questions about relationships that are essential if they are to run a payroll system properly. That is often ignored and overlooked. Myhon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr.   Jackson) eloquently highlighted that we must not forget that those who run small businesses have families. That is a key point.
	Let us consider new clause 1 and why I support it. I   hope that the Minister can provide some thorough replies to my questions. First, I believe that the burden should be lifted on a quid pro quo basis. Is it no longer the principle that one regulation should be removed for another? The new clause would achieve that and I am therefore interested in the Minister's reply to that question.
	Secondly, the point has been made, especially by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), about cash flow. As politicians, we often assume that the most important monetary aspect of a business is profit, and we are wrong. The most important aspect for small businesses is often cash flow. If cash flow is negative, sooner or later, there will be no small business. That point is often forgotten, so I want to stress it. A direct payment scheme will free up significant cash flow in small businesses and may be the one thing that prevents them from going out of business. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
	Thirdly, let us consider the controversy about costs. To refresh my memory, I read what the Minister told us in Committee. For the benefit of hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, I shall quote him. He said:
	I said that the costs of the direct payment scheme were estimated to be up to 75 million in set-up costs and 50 million in annual running costs . . . the benefits for employers were estimated to be around 1 million per year, of which only 400,000 would accrue to small employers.[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 December 2005; c. 52.]
	Does the Minister really mean that small businesses can do something for 400,000 that costs the Government 50 million annually? Where does the figure of 38 million come from? What is the difference between that and the figure of 50 million?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) used the figure of 38 million when he explained the application of new clause 1 to 50 people.

Mark Prisk: That reaffirms my concern because of the difference between an apparent benefit of 1 million to employers, who can clearly run the scheme for that sum, and 50 million, which the Government have to spend on running it instead. Even if we put aside the 75 million of set-up costs, we are still considering an extraordinary difference in efficiency. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, that tells us an enormous amount about either the extraordinary efficiency of the private sector and why we should support it or the extraordinary inefficiency of the Government. Or perhaps it tells us something else: that the Government do not wish to engage in the process, are embarrassed by the promise that they appear to have made and therefore accentuate a difference that is not quite what the Minister claims.
	I am interested in the Minister's explanation of the illogic of a position whereby one organisation can spend 50 million on administering something that many other organisations, which, one would assume, would be a little less efficient because there are many of them, can do for only 1 million. That is illogical and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us about that in his usual fashion.
	My final point, which is of especial concern to business representatives, is to ask why the Government have reneged on what businesses regard as a promise. In all my talks with various business organisationsthe Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses or the CBIthey were crystal clear months ago about the fact that they had an agreement with the Government. Their phraseology was that the Bill was part of a package and they were willing to support it on that basis. They have changed their position because it appears that the package is no longer available. They perceive that the Government have reneged on it.
	We have seen what was written in the Labour party manifesto. Business has been given some assurances and now we find a different settlement. When the Minister responds, will he tell us exactly what he or the Secretary of State agreed with business representatives, especially the CBI, so that we can better understand why they feel so aggrieved?
	Fairness is at the heart of the new clause, which tries to ensure that we can allow families who work for small businesses to have a sensible balance in their lives, with the quid pro quo of ensuring that the smallest businesses that are run by people who have families can have some of the burden lifted. People in business believed that the Government were making that promise. The purpose of the new clause is to fulfil it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for tabling new clause 1. It was not unexpected, given the extent to which we debated the issue in Committee, and there are strong views among the Opposition parties, who have come together to support the new clause and clearly wanted to pursue the matter further. Those views were emphasised by the CBI, which wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just before Christmas withdrawing its support for the Bill because the direct payment issue had not been resolved to its satisfaction. Understandably, a number of Opposition Members spoke in support of the new clause today, but in raising the issue of regulation in general, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr.   Redwood) did, they lost sight of the balance that we are trying to achieve in the Bill and of the issue of direct payment. We consulted fully on the Bill, and sought the opinions of a range of organisations in the business community and the voluntary sector, as well as of stakeholders on whom the measure will impact. In fact, the Government were congratulated on the consultation and on the time that we took before introducing the Bill.

Norman Lamb: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of the consultation the employers' representatives to whom the Government talked supported our approach? The paper by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs says:
	In the face of the mixed response from employers,
	that is a reference to the fact that there is support for the Bill among small business, but not among larger employers
	their representatives suggested Direct Payment should be optional.
	That is precisely what the new clause seeks to achieve. The paper says:
	Such a scheme could be developed.
	Does the Minister therefore accept that the representatives consulted by the Government support what the new clause is trying to achieve?

Gerry Sutcliffe: No, I do not. I shall come on to the work of the Committee later.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that it was a question of balance. I agree. We must consider what provides value for the money for the taxpayer when administering the system. We made it clear at the outset that we are committed to delivering the work and families legislation in a way that strikes the right balance between the needs of children, families and employers. We looked at a range of issues that affect employees and employers. At the time of the 2004 pre-Budget report, we made a commitment to consider the possibility of direct payments as a way of easing the administration of leave and pay. After careful consideration, we concluded that the scheme would be out of proportion to the benefits accruing, representing neither good value for money for the taxpayer nor a significant saving for employers. Hon. Members asked about costs and it was estimated that set-up costs would be up to 75 million with annual running costs of 50 million.
	Those costs should be contrasted with an estimated net benefit for employers of about only 1 million a year. A figure of 38 million was mentioned, but if we accepted new clause 1, which applies to employers with 50 employees or fewer, HMRC's analysis would be relevant. I accept that hon. Members wish to question the figures as they try to make their case, but those figures were widely available. In the CBI response, no one questioned the figures or the detail, nor did they offer alternative figures to explain why the direct payment scheme would work. There would not be any net benefit for the taxpayer or, indeed, small businesses. As for the cost to business of the whole Bill, the majority of costs fall on the Government, as the Treasury reimburses business for statutory maternity, adoption and paternity pay at 92 per cent. for large businesses and at 104.5 per cent. for smaller businesses. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, that is worth about 390 million a year. Small businesses will bear only a small proportion of the costs of the Bill. For example, of the 29 million to 43 million net cost to business of extending maternity and adoption pay, small businesses will pay only 1 million to 8 million.
	We have taken the problems for small businesses into account. I do not think that there are differences between us on whether the self-employed or small businesses are affected, but we must achieve the right balance. We are not starting from scratch, as we already have statutory maternity and paternity pay. The principle of the Bill has been accepted by all parties. I   raised an article in today's Financial Times with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). I accept that she has not had time to read it, but it suggests that the Opposition have changed their view on paternity leave and fathers taking time off when their child is born. In earlier debates, however, she backed what we are trying to achieve.

Eleanor Laing: May I reiterate that, whatever impression has been given, we support the basic principle of the Bill? Fathers should be allowed to take time off when their children are born.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I accept that the hon. Lady is sincere and I accept the view of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) that the Labour party does not have a monopoly when it comes to political parties caring about employees and working conditions. The proof of the pudding, however, is the action that is taken. The Opposition talk about attacking business where necessary, but the article gives the impression that, in this instance, paternity leave may not be appropriate.

Mark Prisk: The Minister says that the proof is in actions, not words, but the business community clearly understood that there was a one-for-one package. Why, therefore, did the Minister not back his words with actions?

Gerry Sutcliffe: In Committee, as I hope to show later, I discussed areas in which the Government are helping business by trying to support it

Norman Lamb: With a CD-ROM?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman may attack the CD-ROM proposal, but we have regular meetings with small businesses to look at what can be done. We have set up Employee Direct, particularly for small businesses, to see what can be done about the burden of regulation and to try to make sure that we ease it.
	In the context of direct payments, much has been made of the cost of such payments. In its response, the CBI attacked us, saying that we were trying to hide the   figures. That is the not the casethe figures are on   the website and have been placed in the Library. HMRC took a great deal of advice from a specially convened advisory group of payroll experts who were representatives of both large and small employers, payroll bureaux and software developers. HMRC's own analysts also carried out extensive analysis that was published on its website when the 2005 pre-Budget report was published.
	Having given the House the headline figures, which demonstrate why a direct payment scheme would neither offer good value for money for the taxpayer, nor offer employers the savings that they might have hoped for, I will briefly explain why, even if we opted for a direct payment scheme employers would still be left with administrative responsibilities.

Nigel Dodds: Given the doubts expressed today about the costs and the burden on small businesses in particular, can the Minister give the House an assurance that if the new clause is not acceptedI sincerely hope that it will behe will keep the matter under review? If the costs are much greater to small businesses, will he look at the provisions in new clause 1 again and revisit the matter?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am happy to give the House an assurance. The Government do not think that the direct payment scheme, given the cost both of setting it up and   of its administration, is appropriate. However, regulations will flow from the Bill and we will have to consult with small businesses on regulations on additional paternity leave and so on. The hon. Member for North Norfolk rightly pointed out that the figure of 104 per cent. related to the national insurance contribution. We will consider whether we need to change the position as to who can access the 104 per cent. We will also consider how we can further relieve the burden on small businesses, but I do not want the House to run away with the view, which understandably comes from the Opposition, that because we are not providing direct payments, we are not prepared to consider the burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses. In the context of the Bill, I have tried to outline where the burden on small business lies.

Mark Prisk: Is not the Minister embarrassed that what would cost 1 million if run by business will, it appears, cost 50 million if his Department runs it? Is not that an embarrassing statement in terms of the protection that he and his colleagues are meant to provide to the public purse?

Gerry Sutcliffe: No, I am not embarrassed, but I understand why the hon. Gentleman is trying to distortthat might be too strong a wordthe position. The effect on certain small businesses that have written payrolls rather than more technologically developed ones is complex, and that has been included in our calculations.

Eleanor Laing: If we accept the Minister's calculation of what the provision would cost the Government or the taxpayer to administer, will he accept that 400,000 is not a realistic figure to put on the cost to small businesses? It is not just a question of how many stamps are required and how many letters they post but of the time and the additional burden involved. Surely the overall cost for small businesses must be far greater than 400,000.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am prepared to accept the word of the payroll experts and the experts at Revenue and Customs who have come up with those figures. The time involved in administration is incorporated in those figures.
	Even if cost were not an issue, there are other issues relating to direct payment that would increase administrative responsibilities. In many instances, the scheme would add new responsibilities for employers, which I am sure is not what Members want. I therefore hope that Members will allow me a little time to explain why the Government believe that the actuality of a direct payment scheme, as well as the burden of costs, would not benefit employers.

Norman Lamb: Does the Minister accept that, even though there are some new burdens in passing information over, even the Government's regulatory impact assessment accepts that those are less than the saving that would be made? The RIA assesses it as a small saving of 1 million, but those burdens are still less.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I fear that, however eloquently I try to explain the position in relation to direct payments, Opposition Members have already made their minds up. They have decided that they want this scheme and, no matter what explanation I give, they will push for it to   be developed. I ask them to bear with me a little further.
	A direct payment scheme would add new responsibilities for employers. Because statutory maternity pay and other payments listed in the new clause are wage replacements, which are subject to the full range of payroll deductions and paid net, direct payment would mean Revenue and Customs becoming a temporary payroller for SMP and other statutory payments to employees of potentially any employer in the country, taking off the full range of payroll deductions. Employers would not, however, lose all their current tasks and responsibilities in relation to those payments. For example, they would remain responsible for making earnings-based contributions such as employers' national insurance contributions and employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes. They would also continue to be responsible for completing periodical returns such as the employer's annual return. Many employers also provide occupational maternity and paternity pay on top of the   statutory minimum, which is something that the Government welcome. Handing responsibility for statutory payments to the Government would still leave such employers with the responsibility of making those occupational payments, in addition to having to pass on new information to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	For a direct payment scheme to work properly for both employers and Revenue and Customs, a potentially complex two-way information exchange would be necessary, which, as I have pointed out, would impose new burdens on employers. HMRC would require detailed information to be provided by employers to high standards of accuracy and to tight time limits in order to take on that function, and employers would still need information from HMRC to fulfil their obligations and to take back the payroll at the end of the direct payment period.
	During the work and families consultation, many people, including the ad hoc advisory group of payroll experts, pointed out that such complex information exchanges could not realistically take place without error. Dealing with the consequences of errors would fall to the employers as a new burden, as employees would in the first instance turn to their employers for an explanation. Of course, the errors would also affect the employees concerned.
	Given the cost of a direct payment scheme, it does not represent value for money for the taxpayer, which is why we have not moved forward with such a scheme. The administration of such a scheme would not benefit businesses, particularly small businesses.

Mark Prisk: The key word in the new clause is that companies may transfer responsibility. Such companies can make their own sensible assessment as to   whether it is right in their circumstances. No compulsion is involvedthe new clause would merely allow them to make that transfer. Does the Minister therefore accept that companies are better able to judge that than he is?

Gerry Sutcliffe: With due respect to hon. Members, the bulk of the reason for their position is that the CBI has withdrawn its support for the Bill because of the issue of direct payments[Interruption.] It is important to see direct payments in the context of the whole Bill. The CBI and most employers' organisations support the principles of the Bill, as do all political parties.
	Because of the costs involved, we not believe that a direct payment would represent value for money for the taxpayer. It would not provide the benefits that hon. Members claim, not only because of the costs involved but because of the administration of the scheme. The issue of cash flow was raised with regard to small businesses, but small businesses can apply for funding upfront in relation to the administration of schemes. Throughout the process, we have consulted small businesses and the business community about how to deal with the issue.
	I am unlikely to be able to change the view of Opposition Members, given the positions that they have set out. I hope that they will take in good faith what the Government have said about the costs of a direct payment scheme and that they understand that such a scheme would not work for the reasons that I have given. I hope that the hon. Member for North Norfolk will withdraw the motion.

Norman Lamb: Liberal Democrat Members are not satisfied with the Government's response and will seek to divide the House on the new clause. The Minister says that our whole position is driven by the CBI, but it is long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and part of our election manifesto. I am delighted that Conservative Members added their names to our new clause and that the CBI supports Liberal Democrat policy, which seems an entirely good thing. We are not responding to any change of position from the CBIour position has been the same throughout, and we tabled such a proposal in Committee, as the Minister knows.
	I repeat that we strongly support the Bill, which provides new rights that are thoroughly welcome and will help in achieving a better work-life balance for families. As the Conservative spokesman mentioned, however, it is important to ensure that there is confidence in the changes and reforms introduced, and   that the Government bring business with them. The Government must acknowledge that they have a problem. For example, it is not good that the CBI has withdrawn its support, because the Bill ought to be a package of proposals around which everyone can unite. The Government have lost that big tent, to coin a phrase, and they ought to be thinking about how they can recover that position.
	The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr.   Prisk) just reiterated a point that I, and others, have already made: this is all about giving employers a right. They might seek to transfer responsibility to the Government if they considered that that was in their interests. Self-evidently, the new clause is directed at the employers who would benefit most in terms of cost savings.
	I want to deal briefly with what has been described as the incredible disparity between the assessed cost of the Government's running the scheme50 million quidand the assessed savings for employers1.1 million. That is based on the regulatory impact assessment. I   support the RIA process in principle, but we need to be clear about the severe limitations imposed by the way in which such assessments are conducted. They tend to   be self-serving, in that they are prepared by the Departments that seek to benefit from them. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs obviously does not want an additional responsibility, so self-interest is involved in the delivery of an assessment that is discouraging from the point of view of employers.
	We should bear it in mind that many small employers still make their calculations manually. It seems incredible to me that the saving to employers should amount to only 1 million, while it would cost the Government 50 million to operate the scheme on an automated basis. That simply does not make sense. We believeas, I think, do the Conservativesthat the   employers' costs have been underestimated, and the Government's costs have been overstated.

Robert Smith: Is this not yet another illustration of why we need an independent body to assess the quality of regulatory impact assessments? The House would then be better informed of where the true figure might lie.

Norman Lamb: I entirely agree. There must be an element of independence in the RIA process, for, without it, the figures simply cannot be robust enough. There should also be a reassessment once the regulation has been introduced. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that will happen. He said that he would keep the matter under review in response to an intervention, and, a year on, we ought to establish what the actual costs have been.
	A number of factors have led us to conclude that this assessment is wrong. I heard what the Minister said at the end of his speech, but I still believe that, for many employers statutory maternity and paternity pay has cash flow implications which could be avoided if the payments were made directly by the Government. We should also bear in mind the time taken away from wealth generation. The time spent on completing a manual declaration could be spent on making moneygenerating wealth for the business. I bet that the assessors did not calculate that loss adequately.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The assessors did take account of those figures, but the Government are taking a number of other measures to help small businesses improve their payroll systems and are considering better ways of giving them information. The hon. Gentleman must accept that. He is speaking out of context.

Norman Lamb: With due respect, I am not entirely sure what that intervention was meant to achieve.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It made me feel better.

Norman Lamb: In that case, I welcome it, because the Minister is a good friend. [Laughter.] That has clearly caused a lot of trouble. I had better move on.
	A simplistic exercise could be undertaken at a desk in Whitehall to calculate the total cost to employers, but such an exercise would not take account of the time involved. Imagine a small business with a manual payroll system and one boss, man or woman, trying to run everything: trying to keep the money coming in, and at the same time having to deal with additional administrative burdens. I do not think that the RIA takes adequate account of that either.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made a good point about the cumulative effect of one regulation after another. Others pointed out that business people have families themselves, and must often do the work late at night or at weekends when they too could be improving their work-life balances. There is another important point, which has not been mentioned today but which should be borne in mind. Members of Parliament may have staff who take maternity leave. I face the delightful prospect of two staff members' taking maternity leave this year. [Interruption.] There is nothing further to be said about that. There is no scandal. There is no skeleton in my cupboard.

Stewart Jackson: Busy in North Norfolk.

Norman Lamb: Busy in North Norfolk, yes. One is in London and the other is in North Norfolk. [Laughter.] I am getting myself into trouble here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he should get on with discussing new clause 1.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	My point is that we Members are compensated for the cost of having a member of staff on maternity leave. The cost of replacement staff is paid by the Fees Office. People who run their own businesses are not compensated in that way and must incur an additional burden in paying for replacement workers.
	If the Minister is intent on rejecting the new clause, we will press it to a vote, but in any event I urge him to look again at the percentage repayment. As he has conceded, the 104.5 per cent. for small businesses does not compensate them for the administrative burden. When he intervened on my speech earlier, he accepted that they should be compensated. The Government ought to act according to their words, and increase the amount given back to employers.

Eleanor Laing: Has not the Minister demonstrated that the Government simply do not understand how small businesses work? It seems that they are about to reject a new clause that has the support of everyone else in the House.

Norman Lamb: One does get that impression. The only Member to speak against the new clause was the Minister. He was on his own: not a single member of his party supported what he was trying to do.
	We will press the new clause to a vote, because the Government have not stuck by their promise to help small businesses introduce the system. We ought to be bringing small businesses with us, and the Government are failing in that regard.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 292.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3
	  
	Review of additional paternity and leave pay

'The Secretary of State shall review and publish a report on the effectiveness of regulations made under
	(a)   sections 80AA and 80BB of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
	(b)   sections 171ZEA to 171ZEE of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, every year in which the regulations are in force beginning 12 months after the regulations are made.'.[Mrs. Laing.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	New clause 3 might appear somewhat opaque, but it would require clauses 3 to 10 to be reviewed after one year. We touched on some of the issues in our debate on new clause 1, but this proposal deals specifically with additional paternity leave and additional statutory paternity pay.
	The Bill goes much further than the Government's original proposals, which suggested that mothers' rights to maternity leave and maternity pay would be transferred to fathers. In effect, it creates new rights for fathers.
	We are not against paternity pay in principle. We accept that it is good for families if new fathers can be with their babies in the months after they are born. It is especially important for working mothers to have the support of fathers when a child is very small. That is a crucial time, and the Government's proposals are absolutely right in principle but, as ever, the question is one of balance.
	As I said in the debate on new clause 1, it is very important to balance the needs and rights of employers, and especially small employers, with those of employees. Only by striking the right balance will we be able to achieve the optimum result for the economy and for society. It is true, of course, that a work force that is treated well will be more efficient, and that employers who treat employees reasonably will get better employees and run better businesses.
	We accept that all the proposals under discussion today have an economic as well as a social imperative, but we have tabled new clause 3 because we remain concerned about the mechanics of how paternity leave and paternity pay will work. We support the principle, but no one knows what will happen in practice.
	The debate on new clause 1 revealed a stark and unarguable truththat no one knows how much it will cost businesses to administer the proposals in respect of maternity and paternity pay and leave. It may cost 400,000 every year, or 5 millionthe gap is enormous. Were the monetary costs involved estimated at a ball-park figure of between 500,000 and 2 million, it would be reasonable to accept them, and we should do so happily enough. However, there is not a ball park but a whole town of difference between the estimates.
	I think that even the Minister will accept that we have no idea of how much the proposals in the Bill will cost business. If I am wrong, I should be happy to give way to him.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall wait until later.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister says that he will wait, and that is fair enough, but I believe that even he does not know the cost to small businessesmonetary and otherwiseof administering and paying for the rights created in the Bill. If he does not know that, it is fair to say that no one does.
	If I address my remarks specifically to small businesses, it is not because I have no sympathy for or understanding of big business. However, large firms have human resources departments, and full-time accountants and tax experts, and so on. Proportionately, therefore, they will have to put less time and effort into bringing into the Bill into effect. I   hope that the Minister will agree about that.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Lady accept that what we need is a level playing field? Will not small businesses that treat their staff properly consider that they are being penalised because of bad employers that do not grant reasonable leave to fathers?

Eleanor Laing: I see what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I would say that we need not so much a level playing field as to try to make all employers do what good ones already do. We had an excellent debate in Committee on paternity leave, and I am sorry to see so few members of the Committee here, although there are somenotably the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr.   Walker). Examples were given of times when men had found an excuse to be absent from work on the day that their child was born, or the day after, or the day   after that. They would give any excuse other than what might be construed as the soppy excuse that their wife was having a baby and they would leave work that afternoon. When I say soppy, incidentally, I do not mean that I think it a soppy excuse; indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether soppy is parliamentary language, and I apologise unreservedly if it is not. The point is that we all know the way in which men sometimes talk to other men, and it is often the case that there is not always universal sympathy for a man who thinks that his place on the day on which his child is born is beside his wife and child. There are people who think that he should be anywhere else in the world. It is generally agreed, however, that a man should, of course, have the right to paternity leave.
	It is far better that employers and employees are given the opportunity to be honest about this matter. Examples were given in Committee of where expectant fathers would give all sorts of excuses for not being at work when they were in fact attending the birth of their child. The really good thing about the Bill is that it   encourages, and indeed enables, employers, and employees, to be honest. If a man wishes to be present at the birth of his child and be with his wife and child the following day and for a little while thereafter, he should be able to be honest about it, and a good employer, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, will recognise that he will get more out of his employee if he is flexible about giving leave. That is what is good about the Bill.
	What is not good is that we do not know what the effect will be on small businesses, and therefore on the economy as a whole. That is why we tabled new clause 3, requiring the Secretary of State to review and report on the effect of clauses 3 to 10 during every year in which the regulations are in force, beginning 12 months after they are made. That, of course, could be just over a year from now, and the Minister might be able to tell us what we all suspect, which is that 400,000 is not anything like the real cost to business of administering the new rights in the Bill.
	I hope that the Bill will pass today, but I hope that the   Minister will tell us in 12 months' time that the regulations are working smoothly and well, that employers have adjusted very well to the way in which paternity leave is being sought and given and paternity pay paid. I hope that he will be able to tell us that the administrative problems are few. I hope he will be able to say that, but we do not know.
	The Bill would be the better for having new clause 3 added to it. I said earlier that it is essential that Bills such as this one command the respect of all who have to implement them. The Bill would command far more respect if it required that we review its operation after a year. We would thus be able to see what was really happening on the ground. So often, the House and the other place deliberate at length on what ought to be done, what laws passed, what regulation made and how different people ought to behave. We then discover afterwards that there were unintended consequences of the laws that we have passed.
	I do not want the Bill to go wrong. I want it to succeed. If we have the assurance that the Secretary of State will come back in a year to tell us how an essential part of the Bill is progressing and how it is affecting businesses, employers, employees and the economy as a whole, we could have far more confidence in it.

Sadiq Khan: I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said. It is clear that she has been given a difficult brief by the men in green suits and pastiche ties who run her party, even if they are better, I suggest, than the grey men in grey suits who used to run it. They clearly need to be seen to be close to business, but the front page of today's Financial Times and new clause 2, which is not being taken today, rather give the game away.
	The implication of what the hon. Lady said is that the Secretary of State and the Minister do not spend a considerable amount of their time talking to businesses and listening to what small businesses and employers have to say. That is, of course, absurd. The idea that they speak to business or small employers only once a   year and that only once a year would they relay those people's views back to the House is absurd. This back-door sunset clausefor that is what the new clause isattacks the paternity leave that we introduced for birth and adoption. It attacks, indirectly, additional statutory paternity pay for birth and adoption, and it attacks additional statutory maternity pay and the rates of pay and period of leave that we are introducing. The platitudes of the hon. Member for Epping Forest on the   wonders of paternity pay and her statements that   the Government have, of course, got their policy right in principle, are also absurd. There is no sincerity in them.

Eleanor Laing: Throughout the passage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has made it his business to misinterpret everything I say, to put words in my mouth and to make out that I am saying things that I am not saying. Every word he just said was nonsense. We support the Bill.

Sadiq Khan: The proof of that can of course be found in   two things, to deal with any assertion of misinterpretation. One, of course, is Hansard. The other is form. If we look at the form of the official Opposition, we see that new clause 3 was not present in Standing Committee. In addition, they have form on opposing paternity pay provision when it was first introduced back in late 2001. I shall give the hon. Lady the opportunity to intervene if she wants to say that her party and her leader did not vote against the introduction of paternity pay in late 2001. I note her silence.

Eleanor Laing: rose

Mark Tami: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan: Of course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to go down the road of history. The hon. Gentleman ought really to confine his remarks to the new clause before the House.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply trying to answer, pleasantly and courteously, the spurious allegation made against me.

Mark Tami: The Opposition claim to support this measure, so why have they tabled a new clause that would make it appear to employers that it was a temporary measure that would last only a year?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend spots the elephant trap that the Opposition wish us to fall into. As for the Trojan horse of the sunset clause, I suspect that a focus group held over the weekend told them that it was a good idea. However, I shall not dwell on the reasons behind the tabling of new clause 3. Without the new clause, the Bill will not lead to a doomsday scenario, as the Opposition have predicted, because we have introduced other family-friendly measures.

Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady has had the opportunity to make her contribution, welcome as it was.
	New clause 3 would remove certainty and clarity for families who wish to plan when to have their children and for businesses and employers who wish to employ workers from the widest

Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) is not interpreting the new clause correctly. It would have no effect on the Bill, and he is inadvertently misleading the House in suggesting that it would. It would not take away any part of the Bill: all it would do is require the Secretary of State to provide a report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is reluctant to get involved in the debate, but the hon. Gentleman should be careful that he does not confuse new clause 2 with new clause 3. He must confine his remarks specifically to new clause 3.

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is what I was doing

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been doing so, I would not have made the remarks that I have just made.

Sadiq Khan: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The problem with new clause 3 is the burden that it would place on the Secretary of State to report once a year and the lack of clarity and certainty that it would mean for families and employers. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister listens carefully to the sensible words spoken by hon. Members, and I ask that he rejects new clause 3 and fulfils our manifesto commitment to continue to build on the family-friendly policies that we have introduced since 1997.

Norman Lamb: I was becoming confused by the talk of elephant traps and Trojan horses, but I think that I   understand the points made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan). The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) talked about the paucity of attendance by members of the Committee, but I wish to point out that the Liberal Democrats have a 100 per cent. attendance.
	I support the new clause in part. It would be eminently sensible to review how regulations are working a year after their implementation. I accept that the hon. Gentleman was talking about an annual review of the regulations, but the general concept of revisiting regulations to see how they operate in practice is good and should not divide us politically. I appreciate that the Conservatives are trying to reinvent themselves, but to give the Government work for the sake of it by reviewing the regulations every year into the future seems a little over the top. However, the administration of the regulations, especially in the transfer of rights from the mother who gives up some of her maternity leave to allow the father to take paternity leave, will be complex, and the Government might not get it absolutely right. It would, therefore, be worth while looking at how the regulations are working after a year to ensure that they are working as well as possible or whether they need tweaking to ensure that their operation is not overly complicated for employers, or for mothers and fathers seeking to take advantage of those rights.
	I support the principle of review, therefore, but not every single year.

Charles Walker: I wish to make a vicious and premeditated attack on the Minister, and I make no apology for doing so. In my dealings with him in my former life as a director of Blue Arrow, I   found him an excellent listener and very sympathetic to the needs of business. If that has destroyed his future political career, I still make no apology for saying it.
	It is nice for me to make a speechand I am sure that it is also a relief for you, Mr. Deputy Speakeron a subject on which I have a small degree of expertise, as a   former director of Blue Arrow, a recruitment company that places some 20,000 people in work a week. As the Minister is aware from our discussions, the labour market has changed for the better over the past two decades, under both Conservative and Labour Governments. These days, 50 per cent. of the work force are male and 50 per cent. female. Indeed, it is predicted that by 2010 women will make up 53 per cent. of the work force.
	The change in work patterns has also seen a change in   child-rearing responsibilities. In my case, my wife would not want me to be involved in any way with child-rearing, because she thinks that I am completely useless at it, and I am happy not to be involved. However, many women have excellent husbands whom they feel they can trust to share child care duties. In such cases, we have to accept that some men will want to take paternity leave to spend time with their children and release their wife to continue her career, perhaps in a higher paying job.
	The recruitment industry welcomes the extension of paternity leave, because we think that we shall make a bit of money from it. Fathers will want to take time off and there will be a consequential cost to small businesses in filling those positions. Recruitment companies often pay a higher hourly rate to temporary workers because they do not have access to the same level of in-work benefits as their permanent colleagues. Recruitment businesses also charge a margin on top of the hourly rate that can be as high as 20 per cent., so the cost to small business can be very real.
	The other issue that small businesses face is losing a key member of staff. I know that the issue is the same when they lose a valuable female member of staff, but the provision will mean that they will lose valuable male members of staff. If a small business employing fewer than 10 people loses one of its star performers for 10 or 12 weeks, it can leave a big hole to fill. Yes, the business can get a temporary worker to cover the role, but the skill set required may be such that the temporary worker cannot hope to fill the vacancy properly.
	I agree that we do not want a sunset clause, but I urge the Government to report to the House in 12 months and let us know how the regulations have been working. That could be done through a statement or a report. Paternity leave will be a new concept and it will take time   for businesses to get their heads around it. It will   also take time for fathers to get their heads around how to access and manage their new right. If we can   ensure that regulation is thought through thoughtfully, implemented thoughtfully and followed up thoughtfully, it will be a great reassurance to Members on this side of the House. It might also be a reassurance to Labour Members and I am sure that it would be a reassurance to business.

Michael Weir: The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) was a little hard on the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who made some interesting points in her speech, although I cannot support the new clause, as I   shall explain.
	The introduction of paternity leave is most important, as I have said before. When my youngest daughter was born my wife had to stay in hospital before and after the birth, which made things difficult. I had a young daughter to look after and had to change my work patterns. As I was self-employed I was able to do so by working late some nights, but many husbands do not have that opportunity. Far from making excuses, it is actually difficult for many men to take paternity leave for practical reasons so the introduction of statutory paternity leave is important for them.
	I am concerned about the wording of the new clause:
	The Secretary of State shall review and publish a report on the effectiveness of regulations.
	I was not entirely clear what the hon. Member for Epping Forest meant by effectiveness; she referred several times to the effect on business and the costs to business, but that is only one side. There may be an effect on business, but I am interested in the effect on families and employees and how they react to and deal with things. Effectiveness goes two ways; it is not just about cost.
	My worry about the wording is: what happens if after a review we find that the measure is costing business x millions and the situation cannot continue? Are we seriously saying that having granted paternity leave to employees we should tell them that it costs too much and we shall abolish it? That is not a practical proposition.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the new clause does not seem sufficiently wide, its wording is deficient and I take responsibility. Perhaps I   am not as good a lawyer as he. He is right: it is not just a question of costs. If the Government accept the new clause and the Minister makes an assessment of effectiveness, there must be a full assessment of the effect on everyone involved, especially employees and fathers.

Michael Weir: I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. Indeed, if she had used the word effect instead of effectiveness she might have avoided many of the problems.
	Another problem is that the review would be annual, beginning in a year's time. That is wholly and utterly impractical. We are introducing an important new right and it will take time for it to bed in. We need to know about its effects over a longer period. After only one year, relatively few people will have taken advantage of that right, and by its nature its impact will vary from year to year. We cannot take one year in isolation and say that the effect has been x. The effect in year two may be vastly different.
	We need a bedding-in period of at least five years to give a real view of how the measure is working. If the new clause had proposed a review after five years to assess the impact and to consider what we should do if there were detrimental effects either on business or, more important, on employees, I could have supported it, but I cannot do so with its current wording.
	The analogy of the elephant trap was interestingI   can see the Trojan horse falling into it. There are too many dangers in passing a clause worded in that manner. It could have the unintended consequences to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest referred. There are too many ifs and buts. The point about holding a review is valid, but it must take place only after a reasonable period to see whether the regulations have bedded in.
	I shall not support the new clause if the hon. Lady puts it to a vote, but I urge the Minister to assure the House that after a reasonable periodperhaps the end of this Parliamentwe shall have a review of the effect of the regulations. On Second Reading, I expressed concern about the fact that a mother and father could not take maternity and paternity leave at the same time, which would have been extremely useful in my situation, if my wife and I had been in employment. Many aspects of the impact of the regulations on employees need to be assessed. Perhaps a review could reconsider the year's leave and split the time up in different ways to allow a crossover period. It could also consider the effects on small businesses that we discussed in our earlier debate. The review is fine but a year is far too short a period.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to   hold this debate. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr.   Weir) has outlined, in relation to its wording, why we cannot support the new clause, but I am happy to accept the spirit and intention of what it tries to achieve. I am grateful for the contributions of the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan). It was always a great pleasure for me to meet the hon. Member for Broxbourne in his former capacity, and I hope that I   have not done too much damage to his career or mine by saying that. His experience in the field has been vital in informing our debate.
	Of necessity, we expressed a wide range of views on direct payments, as there is great strength of feeling about the differences between us. With paternity leave, however, we are looking at culture change; we are trying to ensure that there is a continuous process whereby employers offer the best support for their employees.
	The measure has not come out of thin air; it is the result of consultation and discussion. One of my concerns has been that the pace of change in the world of work is so dramatic that it is important for the Government, employers and employee representatives to keep up with the requirements of the people that we represent. Research on how the existing rights for statutory paternity pay and leave are used shows that fathers want the flexibility to spend more time with their babies in the first year and are taking advantage of the leave and pay available.
	The Department of Trade and Industry supported the Equal Opportunities Commission survey, Fathers in the First Year, which looked into how much time fathers took off work when their child was born, as well as the attitude of fathers and their partners to fathers' caring role. The hon. Member for Broxbourne told us about his wife's view. I am sure that we have some parenting courses that he could follow.
	The world is changing and it is important that we achieve that culture change. The hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about the need for great care in drawing up the regulations. I agree that it is important that we get that right, and under the affirmative regulation principle, we are taking plenty of time to ensure that we do so.

Norman Lamb: On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry undertook to attempt to get the draft regulations ready before the Committee completed its deliberations. That did not happen, and they are still not ready. Would it not have been better to allow the House to see the regulations at least to assist in the debates on such matters?

Gerry Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend made that offerif it was possiblebut he also said that we need to ensure that we get the detail right and to consult thoroughly and widely, and we are happy to do so with Opposition parties. I have certainly done that when involved with previous Bills, and we welcome any support from Opposition Members in the way that we try to administer doing so. The regulations will go through the affirmative procedureParliament will have an opportunity to discuss themand that is the proper way to proceed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting is quite right. He was consistent during the debates in Committee. He is attacking not the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) personally, but the idea that comes from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr.   Cameron), who says that there are times to stand up to business and times to show that family-friendly employment policies are being considereda point made in an earlier discussion by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). However, the evidence shows that the right hon. Member for Witney is attacking paternity leave and running behind what the   CBI has said about it. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting is right to be consistent in saying that those warm words are not good enough and that actions count. We need to see those actions.
	It is important to review how the system works for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Angus. We want it to work. We want it to be appropriate. We want it to be right. However, the annual review suggested in new clause 3 is not appropriate; it would not represent a good use of taxpayers' moneysomething that is of genuine concern to the hon. Member for Epping Forest. For those reasons, I hope that she accepts the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. I welcome any contribution that she wants to make on the regulations when they are drafted. I also hope that, in light of my recommendations, she will withdraw the motion.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister has been most convincing. He used the magic phrase that always makes me sit up and pay attentiontaxpayers' money. We discussed that matter in Committee on many occasions. I consider the Conservative party to be the guardian of taxpayers' money, but the Government often want to spend so much of it, and it is up to the Opposition to defend the taxpayer. So I am quite persuaded by the Minister's argument, but it is even more pleasing that he says that he accepts the principle of what I have said about the effect of new clause 3.
	Of course, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has his job to do as well. It is quite astonishing that, because I am saying something in 2006 that is broadly in agreement with what the Minister and the Government are saying, he must hark back to what the Conservative party said five years ago. Not so long ago, the Labour party was in favour of the common ownership of the means of production, but I do not hark back to that all the time to try to find something on which we disagree. What we said five years ago is not relevant; what we say now is relevant, and I am saying now that we are in favour of statutory paternity leave.

Mark Tami: The problem is that Labour Members find it very difficult to know what now means, because the concept seems to get shorter and shorter: the Opposition's policies change by the second, not even by the minute.

Eleanor Laing: No, the problem is that Labour Members are very worried about the rising popularity of the Conservative party, but I appreciate that we cannot debate that matter within the terms of new clause 3. So I will take that no further, but I notice that the hon. Gentleman loyally echoes the words of the Prime Minister earlier today. If political parties could not review their polices in light of a changing world and a changing society, what is the point of political parties and what is the point of Parliament as a place to propose ideas and to have debates and arguments? That is what Parliament is all about. I am pleased to say that that is what we are doing effectively this afternoon, and the Minister has done it so effectively that he has persuaded me: I am happy with his assurances that he will return to the House and that we will have such an opportunity in future.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) is right to say that exactly one year is perhaps too soon. Perhaps we need rather more flexibility in the way in which the Government come back to the House to review their legislation. However, I can assure the House that, if the Minister does not return to the House to report on a review of the way in which the legislation is working, the Opposition will ensure that the matter is debated in a year or so, thus ensuring that the House has the opportunity to consider not just the effectiveness of regulations that we hope to pass today, but their effect, as the hon. Member for Angus rightly saysthere is no better education than that of a Scottish lawyerso I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13
	  
	Annual leave

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 11, line 27, at end insert
	'(4A)   Regulations under this section may not make provision in relation to the subject-matter of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 30) (as that Act had effect on 1st July 1999).'.
	The amendment reflects the fact that holiday entitlements and rates of pay for agricultural workers in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The minor technical amendment ensures that the current limited devolution is preserved.

Alan Reid: The Minister is quite right that the matter is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Agricultural Wages Board sets the minimum wage as well as holiday entitlement. It is obliged to set a minimum wage that is above the national minimum wage and a holiday entitlement that is greater than that laid down in the Working Time Regulations 1998. Will the Minister assure the House that the future holiday entitlement of agricultural workers in Scotland will not lag behind that laid down in UK or European regulations?

Russell Brown: While I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister indicated that the amendment is technical, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr.   Reid). I regret to say that although we have a national minimum wage in this country, there are all too often some who would like to attack the protection that is offered through the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Like the hon. Gentleman, I merely say to my good friend the Minister that I hope that the amendment will offer protection to agricultural workers in Scotland and that they will not be worse off in any shape or form compared with workers in other parts of the country.

Michael Weir: I had not intended to speak to the technical amendment, but I have been interested by what hon. Members have said. As the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board is a devolved body, it is up to it to decide what to set. I would hope that members of the board, being good Scots, would set rates that were higher than those in other parts of the country, although I accept that there is no guarantee that that will happen. However, as an independent body, it would have the right to set such rates.
	The number of people working in agriculture in Scotland has declined steadily over the years. Many people who work in agriculture, especially those who are seasonal workers, come from eastern Europe to work for short periods. Will the Minister confirm that they are covered by regulations on the national minimum wage, rather than the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, and that the amendment thus covers people who are permanently engaged in agriculture, rather than seasonal workers?

Eleanor Laing: I also realise that the amendment is technical, so I do not intend to speak for long. Devolution is complicated, so we can forgive the Government for not getting the drafting perfectly right from the beginning and thus having to table the amendment. It is much better for technical amendments to be considered on Report than for us to have to spend hours and hours upstairs considering statutory instruments to make devolution work. We all want devolution to work, so we welcome the amendment.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am pleased that hon. Members' contributions show that we were right to table the amendment. This is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It will be guided by the Low Pay Commission on the national minimum wage and by the European Union on the working time directive and hours. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will note what hon. Members have said.
	Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1
	  
	Leave and pay related to birth or adoption: further amendments

Meg Munn: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 20, line 9, at end insert
	1A  In section 106 of ERA 1996 (replacements) in subsection (2)(a) after adoption leave insert or leave under section 80AA or 80BB (additional paternity leave).'.
	This amendment will support employers in managing the new entitlement to additional paternity leave. The Government recognise that employers are concerned about their position when they take on a new employee to cover a woman's absence on maternity leave. Those concerns were raised on Second Reading. They were also discussed in Committee during debate on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). We recognise that the same issues will be of concern to employers taking on new staff to cover an absence due to additional paternity leave.
	An employee with 52 weeks' service is, of course, protected from being unfairly dismissed. It is right that employees are protected in that way; the Government reduced the qualifying service from two years to one in 1999. However, we recognise that it is also right that we make the management of maternity, adoption and additional paternity leave as straightforward as we can for employers, and that includes making the management of employees they take on to cover maternity, adoption or additional paternity leave as straightforward as we can.
	Section 106 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that where an employee is taken on to cover an absence caused by pregnancy, childbirth or adoption leave and is dismissed because the original employee returns from the absence, they will be treated as having been dismissed for a substantial reason which would mean that the dismissal was not unfair, provided that the employer had acted reasonably.
	Section 106 is intended to protect employers who take on employees to cover maternity or adoption leave. It enables them to dismiss the replacement employee when the original employee returns from leave. The replacement employee is also protected since section 106 applies only where the replacement was informed in   writing when they were appointed that their employment would be terminated when the original employee returned to work, and the dismissal will be fair only if the employer acted reasonably and fairly and followed proper procedures in carrying out the dismissal.
	As well as maternity and adoption leave, section 106 includes replacements taken on to cover maternity or medical suspensions and other absence caused by pregnancy.

Charles Walker: Will there be a requirement for notice or any form of redundancy payment to be given to an individual being dismissed when a women returns from maternity leave? What period of notice and conditions will be attached to that dismissal?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bill extends the notice that women returning from maternity leave give to their employer, enabling the employer to give more notice to the replacement employee. My understanding is that there will not be issues of redundancy as this is not a redundancy situation.

Charles Walker: A woman returning to work could say, I'll be coming back in two or three months. Will there be a requirement for the employer to notify the temporary employee that they will be moving on? It would be fair for the temporary employee to have as much notice as possible that they will not required in future.

Meg Munn: My understanding is that nothing in the Bill changes the current arrangements, and clearly the   employer has to follow the correct procedures. Having the extended notice helps the replacement employee. They need to be told at the outset that they are a replacement and that they will finish at that point. The proper procedures should be followed. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
	The amendment will allow section 106 to be extended to include the dismissal of employees taken on to cover absence due to additional paternity leave. In the majority of cases, such an absence will be short and the   replacement employee will not have enough continuous service with their employer to enable them to claim unfair dismissal. However, there may be circumstances, including where additional paternity leave is taken on the death of the mother, where the father's absence is long enough to allow the replacement to clock up one year's service and be able to claim unfair dismissal. The extension of section 106 will provide certainty to employers managing the new entitlement to   additional paternity leave. Employers will know that   they can take on a replacement to cover the absence without concern about their ability to end the   replacement employee's contract. I commend the amendment to the House.

Norman Lamb: If my amendment on a related point has triggered the Government to spot this anomaly, I   am obviously delighted. This measure appears eminently sensible, and we must ensure that in all the different circumstancesmaternity or paternity leave, or adoptionthe employer and the employee are in the same position. The amendment will regularise that situation, so as to ensure that in the few cases in which someone takes extended paternity leave beyond a year, they will not be in a different position from anyone else. We support the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I was not on the Committee for this Bill, and I would like to ask the Minister and her colleagues a quick question. The proposal in the amendment seems so obvious and logical in the context of the Bill, and I wonder why it was not in the original Bill. Why was it necessary for the Government to table this amendment? I applaud them for so doing, but I wonder whether there is a good reason why the proposal was not considered in the first place.

Meg Munn: First, I am delighted that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is delighted. Secondly, to respond to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), the amendment will ensure that the regulations are clear and that everyone fully understands the position. As I said in my speech, the expectation is that, given the arrangements, there will be very few occasions on which additional paternity leave will last longer than a year. However, as hon. Members know, we are a listening Government and we respond to people's concerns. We wanted to do everything that we could to make the position clear, and that is why we have tabled the amendment at this stage.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This Bill, which has enjoyed a positive reception from both sides of the House during its passage, is pro-family and pro-business. These aims are not mutually exclusive, but mutually supportive. Flexible working increases the number of people who are able to work, which widens the talent pool for business. More importantly, it gives parents a genuine choice when making the difficult decisions about how they balance their work and family lives. That is why these measures are an essential component of an enabling state.
	The Bill extends paid maternity and adoption leave. It extends to carers of adults the right to request flexible working. It also gives fathers the opportunity to play more of a role in their child's upbringing, and it makes it easier for employers to administer these rights. These are progressive policies that respond to profound changes in our workplaces and our homes.
	It is therefore curious to read that the Leader of Her   Majesty's official Opposition, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), is apparently against the measures. Having pronounced his commitment to social justice and espoused the causes of trusting people and sharing responsibility, he now sides with some of the more reactionary elements of society in arguing to prevent fathers from exercising a choice with their partners to take a more prominent role in caring for their child.
	I know that the right hon. Member for Witney, together with his hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, voted against every single family-friendly measure that this Government have introduced, from extending maternity leave, maternity pay and paternity leave to the right to request flexible working. They also voted against giving adoptive parents help for the very first time in dealing with the difficult task of taking children into their homes. We genuinely hoped that there had been a change of heart, and that there would be a progressive consensus behind the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister will remember that, for a couple of years during the last Parliament, I shadowed him when he was a Minister of State. We consistently supported a number of family-friendly measures. We certainly gave our wholehearted support on adoption rights. Perhaps, going back a bit further, the Opposition might have taken a more anti-family stance, but for the past four years or so we have supported the Government on many occasions. Yes, we have had our differences with them over employment legislation, but we have also supported them time and again.

Alan Johnson: I remember when we dealt with the Employment Bill in 2001. The hon. Gentleman's memory is faulty. Conservative Members opposed the Employment Bill on Second Reading on 27 November 2001. That Bill contained every element that I just mentioned. It was supported with fine words in Committee. I well remember the principle being acceptable, but when it came to the crunch and the vote, Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Witney, voted against every single measure. Although we hoped that there had been a change of heart and that there would be a progressive consensus behind the present Bill, that seems not to be the case, but I still hope that Members in all parts of the House will support the Bill this evening.
	Progressive politicians should certainly back the Bill, because progressive businesses back itnot just the biggest businesses, which find it easier to invest in human resources policies, but small businesses too. In many cases, small businesses are far ahead of larger businesses in their enlightened approach to employment relations. They do it almost instinctively, as we found when we researched the original employment relations policies introduced in the early part of the century.
	The economics are clear. It costs 80 to handle a straightforward flexible working request, for instance, but it costs 4,800 to recruit a new employee. That is why 90 per cent. of flexible working requests are being accommodated, according to a CBI survey. That is why Miles Templeman, director general of the Institute of Directors, which was against the original proposals back in 200001, now says:
	Our members, by and large, support family-friendly policies.
	The CBI accepts in principle the Government's desire to extend family-friendly rights further.
	Business backs the extension of flexible working to one group at a time, the very approach that we have taken in the Bill. Business also supports the extension of maternity pay towards 12 months by the end of this Parliament, and many of the other measures in the Billthe increased notice periods, the keeping in touch days and the alignment of start dates, all of which are essential simplifications of the legislation. Many of these measures were developed in partnership with business, through our external advisory group of human resources experts.
	We will continue to work closely with business as we move forward. In February, we will consult on the details of the paternity scheme so that large and small businesses can introduce these important measures successfully. We will also consult on the annual leave entitlement before putting detailed changes to Parliament, including on phasing in the introduction.
	The Bill is business-friendly, child-friendly and parent-friendly and will enhance Britain's economic success. I commend it to the House.

Eleanor Laing: May I begin by correcting what the Secretary of State has just said about the attitude of my   right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr.   Cameron) ? My right hon. Friend supports the Bill, as do I. If he did not support its provisions, I would now be urging the House to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. I am not doing so. I am supporting the Bill, as I have done throughout its passage which, incidentally, began before my right hon. Friend became leader of the Conservative partya whole day before.
	The right hon. Gentleman may be right in his recollection and assessment of what the Conservative party may have said in the dim and distant past. I am interested in the future.

Alan Johnson: Will the hon. Lady confirm that in the dim and distant past1 January 2006the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said:
	The suggestion for the massive extension of paternity leave owes . . . more to political correctness than the realities of life.?

Eleanor Laing: It depends how one interprets those words. [Laughter.] My interpretation is that my right hon. Friend agrees with all that I have said during the passage of this Bill and, I hope, with all that I am about to say on Third Reading.
	As I said on Report, it is idealistic to suggest that a work force will be happy, and able to do their jobs to the very best of their ability, if they do not have to worry about what is going on in the rest of their lives while they are at work. If, however, a person goes to work knowing that they can leave work if someone for whom they are caring at homea small child, someone who is ill or an elderly relativeneeds them, then they will work better and form part of a better work force.
	Employers will be happier with how their employees are functioning, if their employees can get on with their work without anxiety about trying to balance work and family lifethat said, mothers and fathers who go to work will always have some anxiety about their children or elderly relatives, so perhaps I am being idealistic. However, I am trying to convince the Secretary of State that I entirely agree with his remarks about the importance of flexibility and the work-life balance, which make for a better, more efficient work force.
	If the Bill works as intended, it will be good for not only society, but the economythe economic imperative.

James McGovern: In Committee, some hon. Members were surprised that the hon. Lady and I seemed to agree about annual leave entitlements. Will she confirm that she agrees that all workers should be entitled to 28 days paid annual leave guaranteed by law?

Eleanor Laing: rose

John Heppell: What does 28 days mean?

Eleanor Laing: That is the point. Does it mean 28 days including public holidays or 28 days excluding public holidays? I personally think it correct to exclude public   holidays from the 28 days. Public holidays should not be included as part of annual leavethey are additional holidays. The transition should be introduced gradually, because it will have a large and immediate impact on some businesses, which may be detrimental.

Charles Walker: I understand that the current provision is 20 days, of which eight days are bank holidays and 12 days are holidays provided by employers. The Warwick agreement states that employers will provide 20 statutory days with eight additional bank holidays on top of that, and the Minister provided an assurance on that point in Committee.

Eleanor Laing: I thank my hon. Friend for assisting me,   because I have got it wrong. When I said 28 days excluding bank holidays, I meant to say 20 days excluding bank holidays. I inadvertently misled the House in my answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr.   Heppell), who said from a sedentary position that it depends on what 28 days means. I am in favour of 20 days plus bank holidays, not 20 days including bank holidays. I hope that I have now made myself clear. I apologise for my lack of clarity, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) for noticing it and helping me so propitiously.
	The Secretary of State is right that, if the Bill works as it is intended to work, business will become more efficient as well as more family-friendly. There is no need for what we describe as family-friendly measures to be in any way opposed to business-friendly measures. As he said, if things work properly, there should not be a choice between a business working efficiently and profitably and a work force being happy. On the contrary, for a business to work to the best of its ability, it is necessary to have a work force who are working to the best of their ability. That means that it is necessary to have a proper work-life balance. We come back, as we always do, to that word, balance. That is what it is all about.
	My concern throughout has been that, if measures go too far in one direction, the Bill will backfire. I do not want employers to be reluctant to employ women of childbearing age because they are likely to take maternity leave.

Alan Johnson: That is illegal.

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is illegal. We recently spent a great deal of time on the Equality Bill making sure that it is illegal. I supported that Bill as well. Nevertheless, it was once the case that women were required to give up work, notably in the civil service. It happened to my mother when she got married. I do not think that she minded. It was the fashion at the time that if a woman who was a qualified civil servant got married, she was required to give up work there and then because it was assumed that she would have a baby more or less immediately. Of course, my mother was very fortunate because she gave up the civil service and had me, although I would not necessarily expect the whole House to agree with that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr.   Khan) would like to disagree, I will certainly give way to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did not say anythingI turned the tables for a change by putting words into his mouth instead of him putting them into mine.

Keith Vaz: It was I who spoke from a sedentary position. I said that we are delighted by the decision taken by the hon. Lady's mother to have her immediately.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It was not quite immediatelyif it had been, I would be even older than I am now, but we will not go into that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. To save any further confusion, perhaps we could concentrate on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I   will of course adhere to your ruling.
	I do not wish to digress or to take up the House's time unnecessarily, but to convince the Secretary of State that I agree with most of what he said. We are thoroughly behind the Bill and its intentions, but I   remain concerned about the burdens on small businesses and about the cost to the taxpayer and the business community, large and small, of implementing some of the regulations. I also remain concerned that, if employers do not have confidence in the Bill and feel that they are being forced into a situation that they do not want, the measure might backfire. However, I hope that it does not because in our debates in many forums in the past few months, we have all been trying to achieve equality in society and in the work force. That is not only desirable but necessary.
	Women have to do two jobs and it is not only desirable but economically necessary that they should do that because we need them in the work force. We need women who are currently in the work force to remain there and it is wrong that a woman who has a child and wants to return to work should sometimes be required to go back at a lower level than that that she had reached before she gave birth. That is wrong socially and because it is unfair, but it is also wrong because of its effect on the economy.
	I shall repeat the statistic that the Minister for women and equality first mentioned. If all the women in our work force worked at the height of their capability instead of doing jobs for which they are over-qualified in order to do part-time work to look after their families, annual GDP would increase by 3 per cent., which is equal to our annual trade with Germany. I have often used that statistic and people have argued against me on many occasions. I cite the Minister as the person who first mentioned it and I therefore hope for my sake as well as hers that it is accurate. However, I   should like us to prove its accuracy by enabling the women to whom we refer to work to the limit of their abilities instead of being undervalued because they happen to be mothers as well as important people in the work force.
	If we require women to do two jobs, we must also require families to support the women and the children involved. For that reason, it is necessary for fathers as well as mothers to have rights.
	If a family is to work the way that it should, flexibility is required to enable people to look after their elderly parents, their sick relatives and their small children when necessary. Flexibility does not mean not working properly. If the employer and the employee exercise it responsibly, it works in everybody's best interests. That is why the Bill is so important. I am pleased to be able to support the Bill. It is a big step forward towards a family friendly workplace. If it works properlyI sincerely hope that it willit will be a huge boost not only to our society but to our economy.
	As the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, it is a pity that we have not seen the regulations. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), promised us that we would see them. There was an understanding that we would have them in Committee. The Minister expressed a further hope in Committee that we would have them before Third Reading. We are nearing the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill and we have still not seen the regulations, so I   fear that it may be the duty of our colleagues in another place to pursue the argument about their introduction. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the Secretary of State was a hard taskmaster in promising that the regulations would be published soon. That was several weeks ago, and we still have not seen the regulations, which is disappointing. Our consideration of the Bill would have been better informed if the regulations had been published. I cannot make that point strongly enough.

Peter Bone: In Committee, I thought that the publication of the regulations was more of a promise that an aspiration. It is difficult to consider the Bill properly without knowing what the regulations are.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is correct. It is difficult to consider the Bill properly without knowing what the regulations are. It is hard to understand why we have reached this stage without the regulations that the Secretary of State promised. The Under-Secretary said that he was doing all that he could to produce them. There is no urgency to introduce the Bill. We could have waited for Third Reading until next week, the week after, or the week after that. It is a good Bill, and we want it to come into force, but there is no reason why it should do so in six or seven weeks' time rather than in 10 or 11 weeks' time. We could have had a far better and more informed debate if we had had the regulations before us. As a matter of principle, it is careless of the Government to expect the House of Commons to do its job properly if we do not have all the information that they ought to give us to allow us to scrutinise the Bill properly.

Alan Johnson: On Second Reading, I expressed the desire and hope that the regulations would be ready while the Bill was proceeding through the House. I am very sorry that that has not proved possible, but that is far from suggesting that it is an essential part of the legislative process. Countless Bills go through the House without regulations being published until they have completed their passage. That is the normal practice. In this case, particularly given concerns about the way in   which paternity leave would operate, I thought that it would assist the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee if the regulations were ready while the Bill was proceeding through the House.
	I accept, however, that the important thing is to get the regulations right. We should not hurry them unnecessarily and perhaps make errors. They are, of course, subject to the affirmative procedure. Our latest information is that they will be included in a consultation document in February. I am sorry that that is after the Bill will have completed its passage through the House but, because of the affirmative resolution procedure, it leaves ample opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to comment and amend them. However, may I record my apology that we could not do something which we hoped and tried to do?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his frankness and for his apology. The Minister said in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman is a hard taskmaster, and I am sure that some people are quaking in their boots and will not dare to ask for any flexible working time until those regulations appear. We look forward eventually to seeing the regulations and I am pleased to accept his assurance that all the regulations will be subject to the   affirmative procedure so that we will have an opportunity in the Statutory Instrument Committee to consider them in detail. I look forward to being able to   do so as soon as possible.
	I want the Bill to work. I am concerned that some parts will not work if the regulations are too tight, if the burdens on small businesses are too great or if the red tape involved in administering the Bill's good intentions cause the legislation, once it comes into force, not to work as the Government intend. The Government have good intentions, and we have good intentions in supporting the Bill, but I do not want anything to happen that would undermine the position of small businesses, because that would make the whole body of   legislation on maternity and paternity pay and family-friendly working arrangements backfire. We therefore want to examine the regulations in great detail to make sure that the Bill will work as intended.
	I leave my reservations on the record and reserve the right to discuss the matter again. It is important that employers and employees alike have confidence in the way in which the regulations will work. If we all want them to work, it is important that we have further discussions about exactly how they will work and that we get the correct balance between the rights of business, particularly small business, and the rights of employees.
	Having said all that, I conclude by thanking all the Ministers who have been involved in the passage of this legislation for the courteous and reasonable way in which they have dealt with it. In finalising the Bill, they have taken many concessions and points into consideration. I also thank Liberal Democrat and Scottish Nationalist Members who have contributed so much to the Bill. An unbelievable degree of consensus has been found between all the partiesparticularly between the Opposition parties, which worries me considerablywhich has meant that our deliberations have been pleasant and constructive throughout the passage of the Bill.I also thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and who supported the Bill today, and all the officials who have worked hard behind the scenes.
	Strangely enough, we appear to be doing well in our use of time this afternoon. As the Bill is intended to be family-friendly, it is wonderful that our deliberation might finish early. I was upset at the thought that I   would not be able to attend the first parents meeting at my four-and-a-half-year-old son's school, where he started only last Thursday. I was called before the headmistress this morning to apologise, as I was not going to be able to attend. If it turns out that we finish early

Alan Johnson: Right to request.

Eleanor Laing: As the right hon. Gentleman says rightly from a sedentary position, there is a right to request. I   request that the House finishes its deliberation of the Bill before 6 pm, and then I can present myself to the headmistress.

Julie Morgan: I will be brief, in order to allow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs.   Laing) to attend the parents evening at her son's school. I am pleased to speak on Third Reading, and I   congratulate the Government on yet another step forward to a family-friendly, more equal society, in tune with modern life. Along with all the other progressive legislation that we have introduced or are in the process of introducingsuch as the Equality Bill and the Childcare Billthis Bill will move us towards a more equal society. It is very important, and I was glad to serve on the Committee.
	As has been said, much of the detail of the Bill has been left to regulation, and I accept my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comments that that must be done carefully and that time is needed, but that there will be the opportunity for further discussion if necessary. I   particularly support the extension of the right to request flexible working to adults. As a carer myself, I   spoke on Second Reading about the specific needs of   carers, and I am anxious that the consultation on the   regulations should give detailed consideration to the definition of a carer. It should be as wide and as flexible as possible. We have all received very good briefings from Carers UK telling us that caring is not the same as child care. Different needs are involved, and different factors must be taken into account. When the regulations are considered, it should be borne in mind that some of those who are cared for may suffer from deteriorating conditions. I am glad that we may have an opportunity to comment on the regulations, and I hope that the consultation will be as broad as possible.
	At present, the right to request flexible working extends only to children under six unless the children are disabled. The Government do not plan to raise that age. As a Government, we have made tremendous progress towards considering the needs of parents, families and people with disabled and elderly relatives in an entirely new way. I hope that we have taken a step towards enabling all families with children of all ages to request flexible working. We all know that children's needs may be even greater when they are older than when they are babies or toddlers. Parents may be more likely to know where there children are when they are little. Different needs arise at different stages of the family cycle. I hope that the Bill will lead to circumstances in which everyone can combine work and family life to the benefit of all, and I hope that we shall be able to discuss that possibility in the future.
	Businesses that already employ people who are carers have found it profitable to consider their rights and needs. I have encountered general support for the Bill among businesses, but I accept that we must consider their needs as well, and work with them to ensure that the fairer, more equal society for which we are working takes those needs into account.
	I strongly support the Bill. It contains excellent provisions. I should like some of them to go further, but the Bill is nevertheless a tremendous step forward.

Norman Lamb: I join the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) in thanking the Secretary of State and the two Ministersdespite their failure to provide the regulations on timefor the way in which they have conducted our debates here and in Committee. I also thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest and other members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan). I have not been on the receiving end of too many of his lashings. The Committee stage was conducted in good heart.
	I am pleased to confirm to the Secretary of State that the Liberal Democrats are fully signed up to the progressive consensus that he mentioned earlier. I am delighted that on this occasion the Government are part of that progressive consensus: that is not always the case nowadays.
	The Bill contains important measures relating to increases in maternity leave and pay, paternity leave and adoption leave. It is remarkable how long it has taken us to acknowledge the importance of giving parents time with children whom they adopt. The Bill also extends flexible working, and facilitates the provision of extra paid leave. It is a good package that recognises the changing nature of the workplace. There has been a transformationa revolutionin the workplace over the past two decades, since the days when it was dominated by malesindeed, fathers. Women were denied many rights, and did not have the opportunity to become economically active.
	The Bill also accepts the economic case for enabling people to stay at work, and to balance that with family commitments. For both those reasons, the Bill is very good. It makes the point that there is no conflict between profitability and family-friendly policies. From the very start of its existence, a company in my constituency adopted a culture of facilitating the employment of people with family responsibilities.

Rob Marris: Bernard Matthews?

Norman Lamb: No; I could not possibly comment on that company's commitment. For example, from the very start, this companyListawoodenabled women to have time off during school holidays and to change their shifts during holiday times to tie in with their partners, and parents to take time out of work to see their children participate in sports days. Such initiatives are not rocket science, but they encourage employees to believe that they are valued and make them feel warm about their employer. I suspect that, as a result, they are more committed to the business.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest spoke of the days when women were sacked when they got pregnant. I was reminded of a role that I had in my previous existence as an employment lawyer.

Rob Marris: A very honourable profession.

Norman Lamb: Absolutely. I led the campaign for compensation for women who were discharged from the   armed forces when they got pregnant. Some 5,000 women were discharged simply because they became pregnant, and we should note the craziness of the resulting lost investment in their training. One of the biggest critics of the campaign to get compensation was a Conservative MP, so if the Conservative party has now moved on that is a good thing from everybody's point of view.
	I have a number of specific points to make about the Bill, but I shall be as brief as I can because I want to make sure that the historic opportunity for parish councils to have their moment in the spotlight in the forthcoming Adjournment debate is not lost. Never has so much time been able to be devoted to the interests of parish councils. First, we must all accept that the Bill does impose new burdens on employers. By and large, employers' organisations recognise that the rights being introduced or extended are good things in themselves and they are prepared to go along with them, but they continue to express concern about the impact on small businesses in particular.
	On Reportthe Secretary of State was not present for that debatethe Government rejected a new clause to introduce a right for small employers to transfer responsibility for the payment of statutory maternity and paternity pay to the Government. We put it to the Minister present for that debate that the Government ought to consider adjusting the percentage payback to employers when recompensing them for the maternity or paternity pay paid out. Currently, 92 per cent. is paid back to all employers who make national insurance contributions in excess of 45,000 a year; for those below that level, the figure is 104.5 per cent. However, even for smaller employers, such repayments do not reflect the administrative burden. In an intervention on my speech on the new clause, the Minister seemed to accept the case for compensating for the cost of the administrative burden. Given that the Government rejected the new clause, they ought to consider making an adjustment to assist employers. If they are unable to help them through the direct payment method, that is another way in which they could help, and they ought to take it seriously.
	My second point concerns the regulations facilitating the increase in paid leave. The Bill provides potentially sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to increase paid leave. The understanding is that it will be increased by another eight days, to reflect the fact that there are still many employees who do not get paid for bank holidays and other public holidays. We very much support such an extension. The CBI made the case for phasing in that additional right.

Gerry Sutcliffe: indicated assent.

Norman Lamb: I see that the Minister is nodding at   that. My purpose is merely to ensure that the Government consult fully with business interests on this matter. I am sure that they will, as the effect will be felt most particularly in low-paid employment such as the hospitality and cleaning industries. The additional costs will be considerable, and there is at least a case for phasing the changes in. The Government need to consult carefully about that.
	Secondly, I turn to the regulations covering the circumstances in which maternity leave can be replaced by paternity leavewhen the father can take time off after the mother returns to work. I support that provision, but framing the regulations to ensure that it works effectively could be a complex matter. In most cases, for instance, the father and mother will work for different employers, with the result that their employers will have to exchange information with each other. It will be difficult to make sure that that works effectivelyboth for fathers and mothers and for employers, especially small onesand again I urge the Government to consult very carefully on that. They should also look at the mechanism again after a year or some other interval to ensure that it is working effectively.
	My third point has to do with the extension of the right to request flexible working. I support that, but on Second Reading I mentioned the contention of the Parkinson's Disease Society that a right to make such a request only once a year did not take into account the fact that the seriousness of some conditions, including Parkinson's disease, can vary considerably over the course of 12 months.
	The Government did not accept the idea that requests might be made more often, and I understand why. However, I urge Ministers to reflect on concerns raised by organisations such as the Parkinson's Disease Society and to see whether the system could be made more flexible. Alternatively, I hope that the guidance that they supply will at least encourage employers to go beyond the statutory minimum in respect of helping the carers of adults with a horrible illness such as Parkinson's disease.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) made a very important point about how carers are defined. That definition will determine whether the extension of the right to request flexible working is limited in value. If the definition is narrow, few people will benefit, whereas a broad definition will be of real value to a large number of carers. Like the hon. Lady, I hope that a broad definition is adopted, so that many people who care for loved ones at home can benefit.
	My final point has to do with the extension of the right to request flexible working to include people with teenage children. The Equal Opportunities Commission has said that the right should, in due course, be extended to cover everyone. People at work who do not have children or who do not care for loved ones at home could feel that there are two separate groups in society. Single people who crave a better work-life balance could believe that they have no right to request anything.

Julie Morgan: indicated assent.

Mark Tami: indicated assent.

Eleanor Laing: indicated assent.

Norman Lamb: I am delighted to hear the supportive comments from Labour Members

Eleanor Laing: And from Conservative Members!

Norman Lamb: And from Conservative MembersI   am sorry to have left them out.
	I understand why the provision to allow people to request flexible working is being phased in. The Government's step-by-step approach is sensible, but I   hope that they will be prepared to consider extending the right to everyone. This is a light-touch regime: people will have the right only to request flexibility, not to get it, but they will be able to discuss the matter with their employer. Indeed, anyone who falls outside the Bill still has the right to ask their employer, but there is no statutory framework to facilitate that. I hope that the   Government will say that as time goes by and the arrangements are assessed and evaluated, they will be able to go on to ensure that everyone has the same right of request.
	The debate has been well conducted at every stage, and there has been broad consensus about sensible provisions. I confirm that we shall support the Bill.

Sadiq Khan: It is a real pleasure to speak on Third Reading to a united Chamber. There was, in fact, a broadly united Standing Committee, too. Some on the Opposition Benches would, given the new leadership of the Conservative party, like to forget the recent past, and particularly their voting record. The Bill needs to be considered in the context of a journey that began in 1997. Although the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) was right to say that most good employment practices are not rocket science, the reality is that for those employers who do not get there by themselves, we need prescription in the law. Secondly, the law and regulations help to change attitudes so that employers, parents and carers change over time.
	It gives me great pleasure to welcome the main thrust of the Work and Families Bill, which will extend paid maternity and adoption leave. It will also extend the right to request flexible working to carers of adults. It will help fathers to play a role in their child's upbringing if the mother returns to work. It will also make things easier for employersa point often forgotten in Report stage debates. It will make it easier for employers to manage the administration of rights. The Bill will also include powers to deliver and ensure that all workers are entitled to four weeks of statutory leave in addition to the eight days for bank holidays.
	It is a great pleasure to welcome the Bill, but it is worth emphasising that it is part of a jigsaw. Other parts of that are the work we have done on tax credits and child tax creditshelping hard-working families and those who are least well off. Other parts of the jigsaw are the work we have done to extend maternity leave to 26 weeks, not just benefiting mothers and families, but benefiting employers by facilitating more continuity and   less staff turnover, with mothers given longer maternity leave.
	We introduced two weeks' paternity leave. Other pieces of the family-friendly jigsaw are the introduction of three months' adoption leave. We must not forget the right to request flexible working, which has benefited 1 million parents across the country and many hundreds in Tooting. We also, of course, in another piece of the jigsaw, increased maternity pay, which was as low as   55 in 1997. Part-time workers now have the same rights as full-time workers, particularly benefiting women and ethnic minority employees, who were disproportionately part-time workers. Other pieces of the jigsaw are the introduction of four weeks of paid leave, which will include the eight pubic holidays. Finally, another piece of the jigsaw is the introduction of the national minimum wage

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now begin to address his remarks to the present Bill.

Sadiq Khan: I will, indeed, and I am grateful,
	I was coming to the point that the Bill, as part of that jigsaw, is different from other pieces of legislation in at least one respect: it has the support of Her Majesty's official Opposition. I do not mean to be churlish in acknowledging that U-turn, which is welcome.
	I must emphasise what the Bill does to improve the quality of life for families in Tooting and around the   country. Increased notice periods benefit both employers and employees, clarifying in law the fact that reasonable contact during maternity leave is permitted, allowing optional keep in touch days and enabling women to go to work for a few days during the paternity pay period. That will help employers to run maternity leave more effectively and will improve communication and contact during leave periods. The Bill will also enable statutory maternity pay to be paid daily and start on any day, which will ease the administration of SMP and allow employers to align the payment of SMP with their normal payroll arrangements.
	Some of my hon. Friends and Liberal Democrat Members have mentioned the extension of the right to request flexible working to carers. It is important to   reassure business that the costs of that will not be disproportionate. The majority of the cost of the measures in the Bill will fall to Government, because the   Treasury will reimburse business for any maternity and paternity pay, at the rate of 92 per cent. for large businesses and 104 per cent. for smaller businesses. It is often forgotten that the net cost to business is estimated to be much smaller40 million to 90 million in any one yearand much of it is offset by the benefits that accrue, such as lower recruitment costs because more mothers return to work. As has been mentioned, more flexible working practices also lead to more productivity and profit, estimated at 3 per cent. of GDP.
	The fact that groups as disparate as the Federation of   Small Businesses, the TUC, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Maternity Alliance, Carers UK and even, dare I say, the Conservative party welcome the Bill is to be commended. The fact that the Bill will pass unopposed shows how far society has moved in recent years. As a Labour Member, I am especially proud that the movement towards a more family-friendly society and a healthier balance between work and family life began in earnest in May 1997.

Charles Walker: It is a privilege and honour to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) because I had the   great pleasure of being a councillor with him in Wandsworth. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. Parental leave is a good thing, and that is accepted on both sides of the Chamber. Most important, it is good for children. Children need their mum and dad. They do not need to be farmed out to day care centres at two or three months old. That is not good for them and it is not good for families. I am delighted that the Bill will allow children in their formative years to spend more time with their parents. After all, once they hit eight, nine or 10, the last thing that they want to do is spend any time with us.
	The Bill is also very good for parents. It allows mothers and fathers to share child-rearing responsibilities between them. It is also excellent that women who go on maternity leave can return to the job that they left. Let us imagine the outrage if the Secretary of State for Health, for example, left to have a baby and was offered a junior transport job when she returned. She would be appalled, we would be appalled and the nation would be appalled. The important element is choice. It might be that the Secretary of State decided that she wanted to spend more time with her family and have a better work-life balance, so she wanted to become a junior Transport Minister. It would be in a strange, parallel universe, but it might happen. In any event, it must be her choice whether to return to her health portfolio or take a slightly less senior role. Choice is very important.
	The Bill is also good for business, because it will be able to hold on to talent. Business is in a skills battle at   present. There is a skills shortage and good people are leaving the labour market and not returning. Most good employers will welcome the Bill. Indeed, many good employers have already adopted many of the provisions, but other employerswith a little encouragementmay find that it is a good thing for them and allows them to become more profitable in the longer term.
	I want to inject a couple of caveats about the benefits for business. I am broadly in favour of increasing paid holiday entitlement from 20 to 28 days. It was always a little disingenuous of us to include eight days of bank holidays in the 20-day period. That was an unsustainable position, but the Minister assured us that he would look at the impact of the increased entitlement on small businesses, for whom the extra eight days would mean a 3 per cent. increase in their payroll costs. Given that there are other added costs, it is important that we consider the impact on overall employment rates, profitability and performance.
	The Bill is exceptionally good for the economy. There is a skills shortage; we do not have enough people with the right skills in the right jobs doing the right things. If the Bill provides people with the reassurance that they can start a family and then return to work we may even see an increase in fertility rates. I realise that that is not the purpose of the Bill, but let us talk about it anyway, in an open and honest fashion.
	I have very much enjoyed taking part in the debate. The Bill is excellent. I seem to be spending an unnatural amount of time voting with my Labour colleagues, although we shall probably not vote on this measure. I   commend the Bill to the House and am grateful to have been allowed to make a short contribution.

Michael Weir: It will probably come as no surprise for the House to learn that we do not always see eye to eye with Labour Members[Hon. Members: Shame.] We get it right more often than they do.
	On this occasion, I am glad to welcome the Bill warmly on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. It contains important measures that will benefit families throughout Scotland and Wales and, indeed, England.
	It is many years since my children were born, but these rights will make a huge difference to families. When my children were born I was self-employed and could change my work patterns so that I could spend time at home with them in the early days. But how many of those who shared the joy of the antenatal clinic with me were able to do the same? If the Bill becomes law, more and more people will be able to take advantage of it, and anything that is good for the family is a very good thing indeed.
	Some points need further examination. On Second Reading and earlier this afternoon, I raised the question of the structure of paternity and maternity leave. It is a shame that there is no opportunity for both parents to take leave at the same time. That is a defect in the legislation. We talked about the possibility of a review in a few years' time and I hope that that is one of the things that will be considered. These are new rights and they will take time to bed in, so we need to see how they work as time goes on.
	We have talked about the importance of children spending their formative years with their parents. They need time with both parents. The arrival of a child can be a traumatic event for a family. It changes people's lives in ways that they had not envisaged and to spend time together with their child is important.

Charles Walker: A new child is often likened to having a house guest who never leaves.

Michael Weir: And probably costs much more, but we will not go there.
	On Second Reading, I referred to surrogate parents. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), wrote to me with detailed reasons as to why, in his opinion, the provisions relating to them should be introduced. I was not entirely convinced by his argument. Society is changing and the numbers involved would be low, although they may increase in futureI   do not have a crystal ball so I do not know. Only a small group of people are involved and their situation is very similar to that of adoptive parents, so I hope that it can be reconsidered in a future review. I accept that we cannot do everything at once.
	We have heard about the impact on business. That is a relevant consideration. Business is in many ways the lifeblood of the nationwe need business to give employment, to create wealthand we must be careful of the impact. Again, we must see how that beds in over the years.
	It is unfortunate that new clause 1 was not passed, because it would have allowed some of the administration to be transferred to the Inland Revenue. Again, that issue may have to be reviewed, because of the impact on small businesses. Those of us who have run small businesses know what it is like to deal with both the business and the huge amount of associated red tape and regulation.
	Family-friendly hours are important. If Ministers wish to push that issue further forward, I make the small suggestion that they should have a chat with the Leader of the House to see whether he could align recesses more with school holidays in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as that would help many hon. Members considerablyjust a quick, self-interested suggestion.
	The other part of the Bill to which I give a warm welcome is the right to request flexible working. Although the right is fairly restrictedit is only a right to requestit is an important step forward. I had a   meeting with carers in my constituency last Friday to   discuss the report, Care 21: Exploring the Future of   Unpaid Care in Scotland, which has been commissioned by the Scottish Executive. The phrase unpaid care gives hon. Members an idea

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I ask him to confine his remarks to the Bill.

Michael Weir: I am coming back to the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I take your admonition.
	My point is that that report impinges on what is happening in the House in the context of the work of the Department for Work and Pensions and employment regulations. By introducing such regulations, we are giving carers the option to seek flexible working. Many carers of disabled or elderly relatives find that they end up having to give up work, because there is no such flexibility. That often puts them into a cycle of benefit dependency and poverty. We are taking the first step to change that by giving carers much more flexibility. That is very welcome.
	All in all, we strongly welcome this very good Bill, which will provide a good way forward. I hope that changes in future reviews will extend the legislation even further, because it is important and I welcome it.

Peter Bone: A family-friendly Bill is bound to be welcomed by Conservative Members, and I certainly do so. This is the first time that, as a new Member, I have had the pleasure of seeing a Bill pass through all its stages in the House of Commons, and I do not think that people outside the House realise the amount of scrutiny and work involved and the give and take in which the Government have seen fit to take part with the Bill. That has been impressive, and I welcome it.
	Just two points concern me. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) mentioned her four-year-old. I have a five-year-old, and one great thing about the House is the Parliament Channel, so that he can see daddy now and again.

Eleanor Laing: At least he can wave hello to daddy. [Laughter.]

Peter Bone: I used to run a small business, and every employee was female and either had children or could have had children. One of the things that the Government sometimes forget is that, to a small business, its employees are the most important asset. I   can remember giving time off to employees, because they needed to go home because their children were sick,   and providing flexible working. We did that automaticallywe did not need regulation to do sobut I understand that some companies might not do so and might need regulation.
	As I said in Committee, what concerns me is the cost of such regulation to small businesses. The one thing that I would have hoped that the Government would take on board, as happens in other countries, is that the   cost of that regulation should be reimbursed to the employers. I think that that needs to be examined at some time in the future because it is important for small businesses.
	Although the Bill will look after mothers who want to go back to work, it will have little impact on mothers who choose to stay at home to bring their children upfull-time mothers. It is a shame that there is such an omission from the Bill. I hope that the Government will examine the matter again and give encouragement to mothers who want to stay at home full-time instead of going back to work.

Alan Johnson: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to say a couple of things in response to the debate, albeit without eating into the hours available for the Adjournment debate on parish councils.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) for her contribution. Indeed, I feel like awarding her a prizeperhaps a Terry's Chocolate Orange straight from the checkout of WH Smithbecause she was very brave to say how much she supports the Bill, including the measures on paternity leave, and how much she disagrees with her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
	I also congratulate the hon. Lady on raising the important matter of the marriage bar, which affected her mother. It does the House a service to think back because the marriage bar lasted until the late 1960s. Indeed, trade unions that stemmed from the civil service such as my own, the Communication Workers Union, kept the marriage bar for their employees into the early 1970s. Kim McKinlay, a great woman trade unionist, had to keep her maiden name and pretend that she was not married to prevent her from being sacked from her position as an assistant secretary with the union. I say this to many young girls, including my daughters, so that they understand what women have had to do to reverse a situation that, as the hon. Lady said, meant that women had to lose their senior positions in the civil service simply because they got married.
	I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for his support for the Bill, and I shall respond to a couple of the points that he made. He   talked about direct payments, and although the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my   hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr.   Sutcliffe), dealt with this during the debate, I   noticedI was watching it on the tellythat the hon. Gentleman said that the problem with regulatory impact assessments is that because they are produced by the Government, there is a suspicion that they are meant to reinforce their argument. We really wanted the figures to come out differently. Nothing would have pleased us more than to find that we could introduce direct payments in the way in which we and the hon. Gentleman wanted. The startling figures of 75 million ongoing costs and a 1 million saving for small businesses were correct. We must remember that we are considering setting up a completely separate duplicate structure. The payroll experts from the CBI who met representatives from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs agreed that the figures made it difficult to proceed. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that we want to help small businesses. If we cannot do that through the direct payments route because of the stark figures and statistics, we shall look for other ways.

Norman Lamb: Would those other ways perhaps include adjusting the percentage repayment for statutory maternity and paternity pay

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I will have to ask the hon. Gentleman to take that up with the Secretary of State at a more appropriate time because the matter is not included in the Bill.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for North Norfolk also talked about full consultation on hours and whether four weeks' paid holiday would be additional to eight bank holiday days. We shall consult carefully on that and on whether we should phase the introduction.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie   Morgan) made a good speech. She and the hon. Members for Angus (Mr. Weir) and for North Norfolk talked about extending the right to request. If we look at what is happening in British workplaces, we see that the fact that parents of children under six and disabled children under 18 have the right to request flexible working means that employers, in complying with those requests, are seeing the benefit of flexible working in   general. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) pointed out, if employers were not doing that before, they are now saying, particularly in small businesses, that they ought to make flexible working available to all their staff because they see the benefits.
	We need to examine the matter further; we said in our election manifesto that we would do so. We should recognise that the whole culture in the workplace is shifting, and it will shift even further when the age discrimination legislation comes in later this year and people have the right to request to work after 65.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr.   Khan), who reminded us how far we have come since 1997. I thank the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for Angus and for Wellingborough for their considered responses. This has been a tremendous scrutiny process.
	Finally, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South and for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). I am lucky indeed to have two such talented Ministers in my team. The praise that they have received from both sides of the House is testament to their skill. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PARISH COUNCILS (PLANNING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Cawsey.]

David Heath: I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to raise, at perhaps greater length than I might have had, the issues of parish councils. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said in the previous debate, it is very rare that we have the opportunity in this place to talk about what are, certainly in England, the basic building blocks of our democratic system, so it is appropriate to take that opportunity.
	The parish council is an extremely venerable institution. It arguably dates back to Anglo-Saxon times, although in its more recent appearance it dates from Gladstone's Local Government Act 1894. A criticism sometimes made of the structures in this country compared with other countries is that we are under-parished. We have relatively fewer community councils at that lowest local level than similar countries in Europe or elsewhere. I have to say that from the perspective of my constituency, it does not seem that way. As Members may know, I have a large rural constituency, and every year I do a tour of my villages. There are more than 120 of them, and I normally visit at least 100 of them each summer during my tour. There are more than 100 parish councils; I think that the figure is 101, but it is a little difficult to be precise because we have at least one detached part of a parish council that lies in another constituency, so the calculation becomes more complex.
	I applied for the debate specifically in response to criticisms expressed to me by a couple of villages: Cranmore and Leigh-on-Mendip. I have noted, since securing the debate and in earlier discussions, that very similar points come up in discussion with a variety of parish councils. They vary widely in their size, of course, and in their function, ranging from the smallest, with relatively little in the way of a local role or budget, to quite sizeable town councils. Frome is the biggest town council in my constituency, but others are actively engaged in running local facilities and take an interest in the development of their town or village. Those that have been engaged in the market towns initiative are able to unlock significant funding to accomplish some of their objectives.

Henry Bellingham: When the hon. Gentleman went on his travels around his constituencyI do not know whether he went on horseback or in a caravandid he discover that the smaller parish councils in particular were having ever more onerous regulations, such as the code of conduct, imposed on them? Are not they also, however, having their powers reduced and are they not being listened to less and less?

David Heath: I shall come to some aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question later. I have not attempted the journey on horseback yet, although it would be an appealing prospect to do so in the steps of William Cobbett, who undertook some of his rural rides in my constituency. He went to Frome, which he described as the Manchester of the south. Perhaps its industrial past was rather different from its more bucolic present.
	A characteristic of all parish councils is the depth of   local knowledge that they contain. The parish councillors are a repository of local knowledge, and because they live within a relatively small community and often make it their business to talk to their neighbours to ensure that they are well advised, they also have a strongly consultative role in their community. I should like to pay tribute to the men and women who volunteer to be our parish councillors. It is often a thankless taskit is certainly unremuneratedbut without them, our democratic system would be very much worse. I pay tribute not only to the elected councillors but to the parish clerks, who are becoming increasingly professional in their abilities and the roles that they perform. They do us a great service right across the country.

Norman Lamb: I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to the work of the parish councillors. I   am concerned, however, at the extent to which we do not always see full slates of candidates when parish council elections are called. It is sometimes difficult even to convene a parish council because of the shortage of candidates. People often complain that they are not listened to, and so wonder what is the point. Planning is a particular case in point. The parish councillors of Barton Turf in my constituency have expressed their concern that they feel that they are not listened to in the planning process. Will my hon. Friend be seeking to find answers to such problems in this debate?

David Heath: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to   learn that he has just provided a synopsis of what I   intend to say today. Those issues are very much the concern of many parish councillors.
	When I visit the parish councillors in my constituency, not only on my summer tour but all year round, I know that they will be able to point to the issues in their community that I need to take up on their behalf. They will know about the road problems, for example, some of which they might have been wrestling with for a long time. They will know about the lack of affordable housing, and about how the problem could be rectified. They will have talked to the children and young people in their community, and will know about the lack of recreational facilities. They will also know about the lack of public transport. That is a particular problem in my Somerset constituency, where the bus timetables sometimes show one bus per week rather than an hourly or more frequent service. The parish councillors will know what a restricting effect that can have on people without their own transport, especially younger people who do not have the capacity to drive and who might not have the opportunity to be driven everywhere by their parents.
	What are the concerns that I hear about the role of parish councils? Picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr.   Bellingham), one of the concerns is a general feeling that there has been a significant increase in the regulation through the code of conduct and through the Standards Board, and that some of that is not relevant to the role and responsibilities of a parish council. I do not entirely accept that argument. I recognise that there are standards that we should expect parish councillors, like any other elected members, to uphold, but there is a point beyond which it is unhelpful and counterproductive to require constant reiteration of those standards.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk pointed out the lack of competition for places. The fact that so few parish councils have competitive elections is a significant worry. I do not know what the answer is. I   do know that not only does it sometimes cause considerable concern to councils that do not have the requisite number of councillors the day after polling day because not enough people put themselves forward, but it calls into question their identity as councillorsthe respect with which they should be treated if they are not genuinely the product of a democratic process, other than nomination. We should be concerned about that.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend asks whether there is an answer to the problem of the democratic deficit. Often, insufficient candidates put themselves forward to fill the places on parish councils. That happens in a very few cases in my constituency in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The answer lies in   the title of my hon. Friend's debatethe implication that parish councils and parish councillors have little or no power. If they are given more powerthe communes in France have powerwe will find that people turn out for elections and that there is competition for the seats available. That is the case at the commune level in France, and no doubt the same would happen with parish councils throughout this country. Surely the answer is that we need to devolve some appropriate powers to parish councils.

David Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a valuable point. People put themselves forward for election and turn out to vote if it means something. We see that in the House. In constituencies which are hard foughtmarginal constituenciesturnout is extremely high. My constituency is one of them. It has been a traditional marginal, which I always win, but by nothing as vulgar as a four-figure majority. It means that we have one of the highest turnouts in the country. If the role of parish councils were strengthened and better understood, people would be more likely to put themselves forward and we would have more hotly contested elections.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. He is in the middle of an extremely impressive speech, which resonates with anyone who understands the countryside. Time and again parish councillors tell me that more people who are involved in the community and who have a great deal to offer would stand if they felt that the decisions of the parish council were listened to by, for example, planning authorities. They tell me that time and again what they say is ignored.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman brings me back to the main tenor of my speech. That is the principal concern for many parish councils, particularly the smaller ones. They feel ignored. They feel that there is a lack of recognition of their role in the process and that they are wasting their time giving great care to consideration of development control planning if nobody at a higher level takes a blind bit of notice. That applies not just to planning. I mentioned affordable housing earlier. Parish councils have tremendous potential for playing a role in seeing through the acquisition of appropriate and affordable housing in their parish, from the point of site identification to the point of allocation. That is not done well at present, and parish councils are often overlooked as a resource in that process.
	The Government's rhetoric suggests that they intend to recognise the role of parish councils in planning. Since the rural delivery review in 2003the so-called Haskins reviewthey have consistently stressed that the role of parish councils is important, and they have supported that role by, for instance, working with the National Association of Local Councils in developing quality assessment and training. Question marks still remain for the future and in the present, and I hope that the Minister will say something about the future in the light of press comment in the past few days.
	We know that the Government are seriously considering the future of local government in this country. On unitary authorities, they are considering whether it is better to have the present two-tier system in shire counties and rural areas by which parish councils exist below both a district council and a county council or whether it would be better to reduce that to a parish council and a unitary authority. I am a former county councillor, a former leader of a county council and a   former leader of a group on the Association of County and City Councils, so I have some knowledge. I   remember the previous local government review, which was a difficult process that turned colleagues at different tiers against one another as they advanced the case for their own authorities and their own way of doing things. The arguments were often equally validthe role of district councils is closer to the public whom they serve, while county councils, as strategic authorities, have the scope to get better value for money through economies of scale.
	There is an argument for unitary authorities, but the Government will make a big mistake if they repeat the 1972 local government changes, which not only instituted new patterns for local government, but told people that they no longer lived where they believed and continued to believe that they lived, which is a point that applies to the creation of the so-called county of Avon. People do not care who collects their dustbins, but they know whether they grew up a Somerset man or a Gloucestershire man, and they do not want to be told that their culture, history and geography has been turned upside down. If the Government want the process of moving unitary authorities to succeed, then I   advise them, however the local authority boundaries are determined, that they should allow the cultural and historic boundaries to remain so that people can still say, I live in Somerset, but my dustbins are collected by South Somerset council, which would allow people to maintain their identities. That is an aside, but it is an important consideration.
	If we are to have unitary authorities, they will by definition be more remote than the present district councils. Such local authorities should be able to consider matters and deliver services at a more local level, in which case the role of the parish council will become even more important as the voice of the local community.

Philip Davies: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this worthwhile Adjournment debate. Does he agree that planning is one of the most emotive issues in a local community and that district councils and county councils often feel just as powerless as the parish council? The problem often concerns central Government planning targets, planning guidance and planning inspectors, who overrule the local authority's decision in one third of cases. More power should certainly be given to parish councils and to local authorities generally, but the power should be taken away from central Government and given to local authorities and parish councils.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a great extent. Since I was first engaged in local government, I   have seen a steady erosion of the discretion available to local government, at any level, to have an effect on the future of its communities. It is constantly looking over its shoulder and thinking, What will a planning inspector make of this?, before reaching a decision. I   am afraid that I take a slightly iconoclastic view, but   I think that, in planning, precedent is the worst enemy of sensible decision making. It prevents local authorities from making the right decision in support of their local community instead of that which is simply what others have done before or may do in future. I will touch on the exact point that the hon. Gentleman raised in a moment.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman has secured an important debate. The number of Members in the Chamber for an Adjournment debate shows how successful he has been and how important it is.
	This morning, I had a phone call from Councillor Stephen North, who is the leader of Rushden town council in my constituency. It is the second biggest town in the constituency, with a population of 32,000. He firmly believes that if more planning powers were given to the town council, it would be more efficient and more accountable.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words.
	I want to deal briefly with housing and then go on to   the generality of planning. The local council in Leigh-on-Mendipa similar situation has arisen in the neighbouring council of Batcombefeels that it is being held over a barrel by Mendip district council, which is saying, You must agree to this low-cost housing scheme, and you have a very limited time scale in which to do so, or the funding will be gone. This is a crucial matter for our community. These are small villages, and the pattern of housing will affect the environment for many years to come. The local council feels that it should have been involved in the process right from the   startthat it should have been able to identify appropriate sites, allowed to consult its community in an effective way, and given a role in carrying it forward. It believes that it is inappropriate to be told that it has so many days, rather than weeks or months, to agree, or it will not have the development that it knows is needed by young people growing up in the community who do not want to go into exile from the village in which they grew up.

Andrew George: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: I will. I am taking a lot of interventions, but I hope that the House recognises that, as we have an unprecedented amount of time for the debate, it is helpful to give hon. Members that opportunity.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend is making an important point about housing. In a previous life, before I came to this House, I encouraged parish councils to take the lead in the development process by setting up a working party, deciding on the housing association and the site, and working with local authorities' housing and   planning departments to drive through the development process as regards meeting their affordable housing needs. It can be done, but it must be with the assistance of the local authority and the recognition by Government that parish councils have a pivotal role.

David Heath: With more eloquence than I could muster, my hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I was trying to make, for which I am grateful.
	I want to consider planning in general because, as hon. Members from all parties have pointed out, it causes the most frustration for parish councillors, who feel that they simply do not get their point of view across. That happens even in the context of district councils, which are eager to hear local voices and effect their wishes. Somerset district council, which is one of two in my constituency, has led good practice. A long time ago, it established local area committees to devolve decision making lower than district council level to give local people an opportunity to be genuinely involved in planning decisions.
	Even in South Somerset, which I consider an example of good practice in planning, there are problems. That is largely due to the Government's targets and the requirement for increasing the speed of resolving planning decisions beyond what is appropriate for the sort of area that I represent. I shall explain that.
	Clearly, it is not a bad thing for the Government to encourage district councils to make planning decisions as quickly as possible. It is reasonable to request that, but what is the consequence in respect of what district councils have to do to fulfil the Government's requirements? First, there is the 21-day consultation process. I shall revert to that shortly, but 21 days is not a long time for a parish council to convene a meeting to take the appropriate soundings from people in the community and to respond in due course. Parish councils often have less than 21 days, because they are not statutory consultees but are statutorily notified. Some may view that as patronising.
	Secondly, there is a lack of access to planners. They have enormous work loads and cannot provide the same care and consultation as formerly for parish councils, applicants or anybody else. A common complaint is that people no longer have the same access to professional planning advice that they once had.

Andrew George: It would be helpful if the Minister for Local Government would clarify the point in his reply, but I understand that a parish council is not a statutory consultee. Its role is even more subordinate than that. There is no requirement on the local authority to consult the parish council; it is consulted merely out of courtesy.

David Heath: My hon. Friend is right and I believe that I said that. Parish councils are not consultees in development control applications. I believe that they are statutory consultees on what is now called the local development framework, which I knew as the local plan. They must be notified, but no more, about development applications. They are not consultees in the same way as some others are.
	The scheme of delegation is another difficult matter. We all accept that, if we are to have an efficient planning system, not every application has to go before a full council committee. That does not make sense. However, in councils throughout the country, officers take more than 90 per cent. of the decisions. Applications do not get near elected members in committee, but are simply tackled by an officer, who may or may not be properly familiar with the concerns and needs of the local village.

Martin Horwood: I apologise in advance that I may have to leave before the end of the debate, which I am glad that my hon. Friend has secured.
	My hon. Friend's comments underline the fact that consultation nowadays is almost perceived as a threat rather than an opportunity for councils and, sometimes, the Government. The Government often say that they are looking for ways in which to engage and involve people in political processes, including the planning process. Yet one method has been under their noses for some time. The parish councils, along with an expanded statutory right to consultation, could provide an excellent way to engage more people. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I served as a parish councillor at one point in my career. I was close to my electorate and was engaged in local decision making on their behalf. We could even consider extending that principle to urban areas that are unparished. If we abandoned the word parish in such instances, more community or neighbourhood councils could have a similar statutory right to consultation.

David Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the Minister replies, he may well say that that is part of the Government's thinking, but I am not convinced that it is working and believe that there are serious difficulties.
	We have touched on the code of conduct, which is an obstacle to common sense. Parish and district councillors may be unable to vote on planning issues. For example, people who wear different hats in the council may be barred from considering such issues. Of course, we need probity in local government, but common sense is required to enable the people who know the local community best to express an opinion on its behalf when they are elected to represent it, but sometimes there are difficulties in allowing them to do so.
	There is a serious shortage of planners. It has become difficult to recruit planners in many district council planning offices, which has had knock-on effects on decision making and the quality of decisions. I recently received a deputation of architects, who were concerned about being given different advice on different occasions. Their clients regard that as a reflection on their professional competence when, in fact, the planners gave them different advice on the same issue. Very often, grounds for refusal are tightly drawn. Parish councils are sometimes criticised for failing to understand what are, and what are not, valid grounds for refusal. If that is the case, better training should be provided for parish councils so that they do understand the difference, but we also need to be flexible about appropriate grounds. If a village has taken a great deal of trouble to determine what it wants for its future, and that has been agreed by all the residents, something that does not fit with its vision should be considered an important ground for refusal. Such considerations can are often ignored if they do not fall within narrow criteria.
	What can we do to improve the situation? We can improve the time scale for consultation and undertake genuine consultation with parish councils to reflect the fact that small rural parish councils are not local authorities that meet every week and employ staff to prepare their response to applications. We could do an awful lot more by developing IT links between parish councils and their local district councils so that they have a clear idea about the progress of a particular planning application and are given more opportunities to make observations on it during the process. I mentioned better training and it is appropriate to ensure that parish councillors have all the tools at their disposal to help them to make the right decisions. We need to address staffing issues in planning and, most of all, we must address the attitude of principal authorities, particularly district councils, so that they accept that parish councils have an important role to play as colleagues. Parish councils are partners in the planning process, not an irritation that gets in the way of quick decision making. It would be helpful if parish councils were treated as statutory consultees rather than as parties to be notified.
	There have been more extensive experiments. In Taunton Deane, for instance, there was a scheme of delegation to parish councils on minor planning decisions. Does the Minister have in mind something similar where there is an appropriate scheme of delegation? The responsibility remains with the principal authority, which is the certifying authority but, nevertheless, in the case of minor issues, which are often delegated to a junior officer, it would be better for a parish council, with its knowledge of what is right for the area, to play a role.

Andrew George: This is an important point, which might get to the nub of the issue. I apologise if my hon. Friend thinks that I am being tiresome, but it is important to develop the issue further. I am not sure that he is being ambitious enough for parish councils. On delegation, there has been an experiment in Taunton Deane and other parts of the country. Does he accept that, because of their proximity to the environment concerned, parish councils are in an excellent position to monitor what is going on from the enforcement point of view? In addition, with regard to smaller extensions or   window and other minor changes, particularly in conservation areas, they are in a strong position to assist the planning process, given the professional assistance of the nearest local planning authority, because they have that local expertise. Surely they need to be given devolved powers to help to make those decisions.

David Heath: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I   applaud particularly what he said about enforcement, as it is often the parish council, rather than district council planners, that knows that something is not being done according to planning permission, and it should at least be able to instigate an appropriate remedy. On determining more decisions, the one drawbackI agree strongly with him about the need to devolve as far as possibleis that it would not be appropriate if the parish council could take the decision without any recourse to the district council while the district council maintained the risk in terms of cost on appeal or whatever. In the Taunton Deane experiment, there was   only one appeal, and that was successfully resisted. That was evidence that parish councils take such responsibilities extremely seriously. A balance must be struck.
	My last major point, on which I started with observations from Cranmore parish council, relates to village plans, which are an extraordinarily effective tool in many ways. For a start, they are wonderful at developing the coherence and good neighbourliness of the village. The village comes together as the parish council undertakes a genuinely consultative procedure to get people's views about the future of their village, what they wish to see and what they regard as the difficulties or deficiencies, in order to create a structure for the village's future. Time and again in villages in my constituency, I have seen the holistic value of that process, which allows people to have a real say in their future.
	The Government promoted that process in the White Paper Our Countryside, which stated:
	local communities have a real opportunity to influence the nature and quality of future development . . . and providing their Plan is consistent with the Local development plan, and the relevant national planning guidance, the design and land use aspects can be endorsed by the planning authority as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
	That was backed up by planning policy statement 1, Delivering Sustainable Development, which supports the role of parish plans in encouraging town and parish councils to develop full and active community involvement in their areas, and PPS 12, Creating Local Development Frameworks, which urges local authorities to
	consider how best to incorporate parish plans within supplementary plan documents.
	[Interruption.] It appears that I am reading out part of the Minister's speech in advance, which I am happy to doso far so good.
	I am therefore concerned that the document, Community Involvement in Planning: The Government's Objectives, published in 2004, contains no recognition of the role of parish plans whatever. There is evidence that in a large number of cases councils have not adopted well-founded village plans as supplementary planning guidance. Extensive research published by the Countryside Agency saw the merits of village plans as a tool for seeking project funding, influencing changes, strengthening the democratic mandate and providing impetus for local community action, but did not find that they had an effective role in influencing planning decisions by the district council. Most planning departments that were consulted considered it unrealistic to expect parish plans to fit into the development planning system.
	That is a serious issue. Parishes in my area are frustrated. Many villages that went to much trouble to produce glossy documents such as the Somerton town plan, which I have herethere are also plans for Norton St. Philip and Henstridgeare ignored far too often when it comes to development control planning.
	A note from the chairman of Leigh-on-Mendip parish council says:
	We completed a village design statement which was duly accepted as supplementary planning guidance. It has not noticeably improved decisions affecting the village.
	That suggests that a hugely time-consuming and relatively expensive processI read in Local Council Review a week ago that the Government were providing another 1 million to support the development of village plansthat is of enormous value does not affect planning decisions even if it is accepted as planning guidance. No wonder parish councillors, parish councils and the communities that they serve feel frustrated.
	If the Government contend that parish plans are a significant part of the planning process, as I think they should be, and if such plans represent the will of the local community, which they clearly do, surely they should have a much clearer status in the decisions made by planning officers and district planning committees, so that they are given effect. Does the Minister agree with that? If so, what will he do to change what appears to be the current position?
	Until the village plan is recognised by the planning inspector as a material consideration, district councils will not take notice of it. As long as we maintain an adversarial system of planning in which the views of the parish council are seen as being simply the views of one contestant in a competition, they will have no effect. If they are seen as the genuine voice of the community, deriving from a partnership between the planning authority and the local community, they will have a real effect.
	Let me end with a communication from another parish councillor in my constituency, from the village of Hemington. The first sentence states:
	As a Parish Councillor I often get the impression that no account has been taken of any decision or comments that our Parish Council makes on individual planning applications.
	That is the view of many parish councillors. I do not think that my constituency is unique in that respect. The same situation prevails up and down the country. I hope that the Minister will say not only that he values the role of parish councils and wants them to extend it in a number of ways of which planning is but one example, but that he will take steps to ensure that the village plan over which people take so much time and trouble plays a real part in the planning process.

David Drew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on choosing this subject for debate, and I praise him for choosing a night to debate it on which the business of the House has collapsed. That has given us the longest opportunity that we will probably ever have to discuss parish and town councils. [Interruption.] I note that the Whip is grimacing, so I shall be brief and stay on the subjectthe planning processexcept for one slight diversion into discussing the local government review and what I hope will be an early and easy move toward unitary authorities in parts of the country such as mine. We struggle with three-tier local government, which helps nobody.
	I should at this point declare an interest. In 1987, I   was elected as a parish councillor in my Stonehouse community, which became a town about three years   later. I am still a town councillor, and for that entire 18-year period I have been on the planning and transportation committee, so I have some expertise in these areas. I shall not bore the House with the details of the meetings that I have attended, but I thoroughly enjoy them and I have yet to be kicked off, or fail to be elected to, that very important body.
	There are a number of other representative bodies that the hon. Gentleman did not touch on, but which are also important in their own right, such as rural community councils and the National Association of Local Councils. Through the work of people such as John Findlay and Michael Green, the NALC represents local councils at national level. I should also like to mention the University of Gloucestershire, which has done a great deal to help to support parish and town councils.
	I welcome the fact that local councilsparish or town councilscan still make planning representations. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, they take two forms: reaction to planning applications, and a more strategic interpretation of the way in which local councils can influence the planning process, which, as he says, is becoming part of the local development framework. When this Government were first elected, the official Opposition said that it was part of the Government's plan to remove parish councils, but it is the Government who have fostered a relationship with parish councils, funded the planning process to make it more effective, and made local democracy, to which they have a longstanding commitment, genuinely work, for reasons that I hope to explain.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the planning application process gives rise to frustration; it would be nice to be listened to by councils further up the line. The problem lies not just with immediate planning applications; there is also the question of minerals policy and waste policy, for example, which currently reside with county councils. It is important that such policies be taken into account, because they have a dramatic impact. In my constituency, waste is a huge issue, and in that regard it is particularly important to find ways of vesting more responsibility at local level.
	The delegation of certain applications to officers is an   issue, and one that we are not necessarily getting right. That said, I realise that there has to be streamlining. Some applications need to be dealt with quickly for all sorts of reasons; others require no real debate because they are straightforward. However, in the days when the   Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions was responsible for such things, the Government considered delegating all planning applications to parish councils. That was not followed through, as some matters can be very sensitiveafter all, turning down applications can cause reverberations when one meets the people who made them in the street or pub. That can be difficult, but I   support greater delegation and believe that the DETR was on to something. Those were also the days of the rural White Paper, through which the Government extended local democracy, and made funding available for it.
	Permitted development rights need to be looked at again, as they have become a bone of contention for district and unitary councils as well as parish councils. Telecommunications masts pose the greatest problem, but listed buildings also cause controversy. The planning application process should take account of parish and town councils, which deserve a statutory role even if their recommendations are not always accepted.
	Stroud district council is the parent body for the various parish councils in my constituency. In one of its less sane moments, it tried to remove parish councils from site inspections, even though the fact that council members know what is going on in their area allows them to speak with authority and thus perform a valuable role. A compromise was mooted that would have allowed them to turn up but say nothingan interesting interpretation of local democracybut in the end the district council changed its mind. As a result, I am pleased to say that parish and town councils retain a role in site inspections.
	This Government have given money and support to the evolution of village and town appraisals and plans. In a clever move, that responsibility was deliberately given to the community represented by parish and town councils, rather than to the councils themselves. That meant that the whole of a community got involved, and not just council members.
	I have read almost all the village appraisals in my constituency, and inspected the plans that have been produced. It has been good to see how local communities have engaged with the process. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is making money available to encourage communities that do not yet have a plan to put one together.
	It is vital that the supplementary guidance for the   local development framework, when it replaces the present local plan, continues that provision. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, if the framework is to have teeth, it must have some statutory authority. Its recommendations must lead to real actions rather then just warm words. I welcome the new framework, which is another development that originated with rural community councils and the National Association of Local Councils.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make a positive response to the debate. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has come into the Chamber. Until recently, he was also a parish councillor and, although I   think that he is one no longer, it is still good to see him wave the flag for parish councils in this place.
	I want to make two more points. The first is about the relationship to other planning bodies. We have something of a conflict at the moment between one of my parish councils, Frampton on Severn, and the Environment Agency about planned flood relief. Parish councils should be listened to in those areas as well as through the formal democratic process. The Environment Agency can have an enormous impact when it is, or is not, going to do flood relief work in communities.
	By pure chance, there was an announcement today, I   think, about the all-party local government group. I suppose we are allowed to mention all-party groups. I   still see them as valuable, even if The Times has pointed the finger and said that they should be opened up. Under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the group announced it will look into relationships between local councils and district and county councils, where they exist, and those with central Government. I hope that that will be pursued and be seen as a useful development.
	My final point is about unitary councils. I, for one, support them, and I am not just saying that now because the Government seem to be moving in that direction. I   have always argued the case for unitary authorities with a clear relationship with parish and town councils. One of the banes of the life of a parish councillor is the fact that they have to deal with two larger authorities, one somewhat more divorced by distance than the other. The games played between those layers of local government mean the parish councillor often finds himself pushed between pillar and post. That is as true of the planning process as it is of many other parts of local democracy. I should welcome any drive towards sorting that out.
	The public want to know who are the decision-making authorities. They want to know exactly that those who speak with authority can deliver. It causes me nothing but griefperhaps an incorrect parliamentary expressionto find one authority dumping on the other.

David Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, I was a parish councillor from 1987 to 2003. He is waxing lyrical about the strengths of unitary authorities as replacements for the   shire and district two-tier arrangement. Does he accept, however, that one of the weaknesses associated with that can be that there are unparished urban areas within district and borough council areas? Would not they be even worse off under a unitary arrangement when just rural parts of the area would be parished, while the urban parts would have no such local representation?

David Drew: I agree entirely and hope that if the review is genuine and open-minded, and if we sort out the layers of local government, we will parish parts of urban Britain that wish it. I do not believe it should be imposed. It should be done through the will of the community, but there are ways in which that can be demonstrated and value shown.
	My desire is for a straightforward move towards unitary government, which could be done and could be made popular. It could then begin to link better with health provision and other elements, including the police, which is a controversial area. We certainly need greater cohesion in the decision-making process, and I   shall say no more on that score. I feel strongly that there is a need for much greater thought on how structural changes are made, including in local government.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the roles of training and of the parish councillor and the clerk. The clerks, remember, have legal authority to ensure that they advise parish and town councillors correctly, which is vital.
	Let me give one final plug to the university of Gloucestershire, which has done a lot of work in this area across the country. It started locally in offering advice on village appraisals and town plans, but it goes wider than that now in running courses across the country. I have spoken on those courses on many occasions because I happen to be local. That is the way forwardto build expertise and get people to stand for election without feeling vulnerable or as though their time is being wasted. That will lead to a better planning process. In the end, we all want a planning process that is fair, transparent and works as quickly as possible so that people get a decision. In some cases that will be a refusal, because the planning process should not be a   pushover. There should not be a presumption in favour of approval. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, precedent is often disastrous. If the first window is put in wrongly, all the subsequent windows will be put in wrongly. I have had some dreadful cases locally where that has resulted in people being threatened with enforcement.
	I hope that the issue will be taken seriously. We have had a longer debate on it than we anticipated, and the hon. Gentleman deserves congratulations on raising it. As my friend Stephen Wright, from the Gloucester rural community council reminds us, the parish system is not the lowest level of government, but the first. Long may it continue and long may we have the planning process we deserve through appropriate investment in that level of government.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate and I am grateful to him for his offer to take up some of the remaining time available. I also appreciate the indulgence of the Minister. It gives me the opportunity to complete the set of the four levels of local government that I have raised with him. I have mentioned regional assemblies, Northamptonshire county council, Daventry district council and Kettering borough council on previous occasions and tonight is a wonderful opportunity to raise the first levelas the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr.   Drew) rightly reminded uswith the Minister.
	In my limited experience of this House, it appears that when residents of parishes wish to raise planning issues, they go to either their parish council or their Member of Parliament, ignoring the various levels of councils in between. I have the privilege of being a borough councillor in Kettering and of chairing the Kettering borough rural forum, which involved the quarterly meeting of all 22 parish councils in the borough. Our next meeting is on 16 February. It is an honour for me to chair the forum and I am keen to continue to do so, because it keeps me closely in touch with the issues of most importance to parish councillors. Planning is, of   course, one of those issues, along with policing and the other rural issues with which we are all familiar.
	The role of parish councils in the planning process is far from perfect, but having a parish council does give local residents a far greater say in some of the important planning issues that affect their area. An example is that of Barton Seagrave in Kettering borough which, until a few years ago, was not a parished area and had no parish council. A campaign was started to parish Barton Seagrave and, after a long process involving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, permission was eventually granted and Barton Seagrave had its parish council. I am delighted to say that the Conservatives have a majority on it.
	Recently, a major planning application was made by the supermarket firm Morrisons to build one of its largest warehouses in the country on the border between Barton Seagrave parish council and Burton Latimer parish council. The Morrisons development was a good thing for Burton Latimer parish council, as it brought jobs and enterprise to the area. However, it threatened to cause all sorts of problems for the residents of Barton Seagrave, not least the possibility of heavy traffic flows along residential streets, particularly Polwell lane. The parish council, especially Mr. and Mrs. Arthur and Margaret Mitchelson, put in a tremendous amount of work representing the concerns of local residents about the planning application. About 1,500 letters of objection flooded into Kettering borough council, such was the outrage locally, but it was effectively channelled by the parish council and other local protest groups into extremely constructive local meetings, one of which I   attended at Latimer arts college in Barton Seagrave, where about 800 local residents heard a briefing on the planning application from borough council planning officers and others.
	Without Barton Seagrave parish council, that effective community involvement would not have happened. I am extremely pleased that Barton Seagrave has its parish council and was able to change a major planning application in several serious respects. Congratulations must go to all the parish councillors and other residents involved.

David Taylor: Borough councillors in Kettering and elsewhere who are listening to the debate might suggest that the meetings led by parish councillors that the hon. Gentleman described could in fact have been triggered by the borough councillors for the area, as presumably there are some. However, does he agree that one of the problems with borough councillors getting involved in community representation is that they may disqualify themselves from the planning process at borough level and thus from representing the concerns of the people they were elected to serve? That tension should be addressed.

Philip Hollobone: Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely effective point. In the Morrisons case, one of the two borough councillors for the area was disqualified under the code of conduct from making any comment as a relative had some work connection with the applicant, while the other felt unable to comment because he sat on the relevant planning committee. A major democratic deficit is created when major planning applications affect local communities, but in that case the parish council was able to meet it most effectively.
	Just down the road from Barton Seagrave is the village of Cranford, in the Buccleuch ward of the borough of Kettering, which I have the privilege to represent. The ward also includes the villages of Grafton Underwood, Warkton, Weekley and Rushton. Cranford and its residents face a serious threat from planning due to the ODPM's Milton Keynes and south midlands sub-regional spatial strategy, which proposes for Kettering borough the construction of 13,100 houses by 2021. That will increase the number of houses in the borough by about a third in the next 15 years. That is a very serious issue for everyone who lives in the locality, but it is particularly serious for the good residents of Cranford and for Cranford parish council, because it is likely that a very large proportion of those 13,100 houses will be built in Cranford parish, effectively between the built-up area of Kettering and Cranford. Cranford parish council is, sadly, like a minnow in a sea of sharks, given such a major development issue.
	I am pleased to report that a former hon. Member for Wellingborough, Sir Peter Fry, serves on that parish council. He and his colleagues are doing all that they can to ensure that local views will be represented when the development plans eventually are made official and presented as a planning application to the borough councilof course, I will do my best as wellbut the voice of any parish council on any issue that involves a directive ultimately from central Government is likely to be extremely limited.
	With a major application, such as the supermarket warehouse development that I have spoken about, the voice of a parish council can be effective in co-ordinating local concernsI am sure that Cranford parish council will do exactly the samebut there is simply no way in which it will be able to stop the development happening in Kettering. At best, the parish council can seek to modify the plans and to ensure that the houses do not absorb Cranford into the whole development and keep it at a distance.
	I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to speak in the debate, because all hon. Members owe a huge debt of gratitude to parish councillors, who give of their time for free and who often meet in cold and draughty village halls, often in remote locations. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, for many residents they are the first layer of government. I hope that the Minister, in addressing the concerns that have been raised in the debate and in any measure that he introduces, will seek to enhance the role of parish councillors, not diminish it.

Andrew George: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr.   Heath) on securing the debate and on making a strong and powerful case for improving, increasing and clarifying in some cases the role of parish councils in respect of planning. Wider than that, planning matters clearly affect many other decisions and issues about which parish councils are rightly concerned on behalf of their local communities.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is no longer in his place, also made a very strong contribution, by emphasising both his own experience and his passionate interest in the subject. Similarly, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) emphasised the importance of parishing those parts of the country that are not yet parished. Of course, with that comes the twin-pronged problem of parishing an area and then having to admit to the councils in that area that they have no powers and the fact that the councillors who end up serving on those councils and on higher-tier authorities are compromised as a result of becoming engaged in any of the more important issues that the parish councils consider, as was exposed in an intervention by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).
	The issue that we are debating has not suddenly sprung up in recent years: an honourable tradition goes back before William Godwin, Kropotkin, Cobbett and, more latterly, Schumacher, all of whom emphasised the importance of giving communities a genuine say in the   conduct of their affairs. In fact, that honourable tradition is exemplified by the way in which parish councils operate when they are at their best and by the way in which we as politicians want communities to have a genuine influence on the conduct of their affairs in taking that issue further forward.
	The hon. Member for Stroud has now returned to the Chamber. He referred to Stephen Wright, the director of Gloucestershire rural community council and a good friend of mine. I think that Stephen Wright stole the words to which the hon. Gentleman referred from me. Seven years ago, I spoke at what was then called the Association of Rural Community Councils and said that parish councils were the highest tier of government because they were closest to the people, and thus in a better position to reflect people's interests. I am sure that I nicked the idea from someone elseprobably Stephen Wrightbut we can argue about that.
	At their worst, parish councils are open forums for settling local scores and pursuing narrow parochial interests and do not help the greater good of the local community. However, when they operate at their best, as they do on most occasions throughout my constituencythis can be said of local authorities of different levelsthey represent the best interests of their communities extremely well. Such councils are in the best position to take decisions.
	The Government have to make important decisions both on the unfinished business of devolution and on the related matter of the role of parish councils. If the Government genuinely think that devolution is a process of letting go instead of holding on for dear life and realise that it is appropriate to devolve a number of powers further down the authority spectrum, they must recognise that they can negotiate a business case for parish councils taking on a range of decision-making responsibilities.
	Such responsibilities might include planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome cited the example of Taunton Deane, as well as the situation in other districts and boroughs. That demonstrates that parish councils are in a good position to monitor situationsdistrict councils are incapable of doing that. They would be in an especially good position to monitor the enforcement of conservation measures and whether all properties in a parish had appropriate planning permission before work was carried out on extensions, for example. Planning law is flouted to a great extent, so parish councils could take on the responsibility for addressing the problem from higher-tier authorities.
	I take on board my hon. Friend's point about risk. Parish councils could be at legal and financial risk if they took decisions on matters that another authority might delegate to them. It would be possible to make a business case for establishing a system through which parish councils would fully understand their legal and financial responsibilities when taking decisions. If the district council engaged in the process, it could supply parish councils with any appropriate professional assistance and expertise that was required. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to create a system of delegation that would work. Parish councils are in a much stronger position than other authorities to discharge duties on a whole load of matters, including planning, environmental matters and waste management.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)or for Stroud and Stonehouse, as I am tempted to rename the seatrefer to the important role of parish clerks, which will be especially important if powers are expanded and a more formal relationship is required. It is not unknown in parts of Leicestershire for parish councillors to resent and resist the greater formality on which clerks rightly insist, so tensions can grow, sometimes to the point of fracture. Has the hon. Gentleman encountered that situation in Cornwall?

Andrew George: There are occasions when what the hon. Gentleman says is true. I shall come on in my final remarks to circumstances in which it is possible for formal structures to operate at a very local level. I shall refer to a part of my constituency that is not in Cornwall.
	I know that local planning issues, in particular, can be tremendously highly charged. No one should go into planning, particularly at officer level, if they have a persecution complex because they will be attacked from both sides on all occasions. The same is true of those on planning committees. I feel very strongly about planning matters, and at every general election, when I   am asked whether I believe that capital punishment should be reintroduced, I say, Absolutely not, except on two occasions: when people put plastic windows into old buildings and when people fail to pick up after their dog.
	Joking asice, and turning to circumstances in which it is appropriate to take decisions locally, I have a good example in my constituency, on the Isles of Scilly. The population is 2,000, considerably smaller than that of many parishes, but the council has more powers than a county, district and parish council rolled into oneit is also the water authority and the airport authority. There are many lessons to be learned from the Isles of Scilly, and if the Government are thinking seriously, as I hope they are, about devolving powers to parish level, they should look at that exemplar. On the Isles of Scilly, all planning decisions, as far as the Government and the new, nonsensical regional assembly allow, are taken at island level, and as a result there are very few occasions on which local people end up gunning each other down in the high street. Planning matters are still highly charged, but the council uses professional planning advice, which often comes from the mainland. It is wise not to have all local authority officers living in the community in question.
	I hope that the Minister takes that on board when he reflects on what he has heard today and on whether he can influence his Department's policy and look again at the possibility of devolving power to parish councils.

Phil Woolas: Life is full of ironies, one of which is that this extended debate has prevented me from attending a meeting in the Department to discuss neighbourhood empowerment, but I think that I have learned a lot in the debate. I am genuinely grateful for that and congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate. I do not suppose that he imagined, when he submitted his letter to Mr. Speaker last week, that he would be given such an extensive debate. It has been a good debate, and I want to try to take on board and answer the points that have been made.
	I hope that it is accepted that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Government generally, greatly appreciate the efforts that parish councils, and the individuals within the parishes, make to ensure that planning applications are decided in an informed way. I   should add that we are also grateful for the valuable work that is done outside the planning remit. Of course, a parish council is not a local planning authority. Nevertheless, along with policies in the local planning authority's local development documents, and any relevant national guidance, the input from parish councils on individual planning applications continues to help planning decision makers to shape our communities and the built environment in a sustainable way. That is the goal of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and it is taken very seriously.
	The Government have an agenda of neighbourhood empowerment, neighbourhood service delivery, neighbourhood governance and what we describe as the double devolution deal, wherein, as we introduce our policies to devolve powers to local areas, we expect upper and second-tier authorities similarly to devolve powers and services further down. That agenda is at the heart of the Government's policy, as will be seen when we publish our White Paper in the summer. It can also be seen in the White Papers and policy documents that we have published.
	I have meetings with the representatives of the National Association of Local Councils, who do invaluable work. I suspect that this debate will be read in Hansard by many people who are active in the parishesmore, perhaps, than some other debates that get the attention of the national media. So I am choosing my words carefully and deliberately; this is an important area of policy.
	I want to try to answer some of the specific points that   hon. Members have raised. The hon. Members for   North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) mentioned the code of conduct. The House should know that the revisions to the code of conduct and the standards and ethical regime are out for consultation at the moment. My own view is that the worries that were expressed when the code was first introduced in relation to parishes have not been realised, and that things have become steadier. There is an acceptance that we need an ethical code of conduct for parish councillors, but I accept that, if petty matters are getting in the way and causing undue concern, we should be made aware of that.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made a number of big points and asked several specific questions. I shall try to answer them, but if I do not do so, I am sure that he will tell me. His argument about marginal seats was interesting, and it is one with which I am familiar. I can confirm that turnout can be increased in such seats. However, it does not necessary follow that parish council seats will be marginal. I work closely with two parishes in my constituency, and I hope that they benefit from that relationship as much as I do. Furthermore, I am not sure that planning authorities on the whole ignore parish councils. From my experience, I suspect that the two bodies concur on the vast majority of decisions, although attention is inevitably paid to those cases in which there is a disagreement. I do not have any research on that point, however, so I cannot back that assertion up.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and other hon. Members, also mentioned the quality and   training of parish councillors and parish clerks. The Government are addressing that issue with funding, as well as with policies. Several hon. Members mentioned the future debate on unitary authorities. We have made our views on that process very clear. I want to reassure all hon. Members who have spoken tonight that two factors will be at the core of the debate about whether an area should be unitary. One is that we ask the opinion of the area concerned. The second is that we ensure that the empowerment of the third tierthe neighbourhoods, including parishes or other parts of urban areasis key to the policy. I take the advice not to tinker with traditional boundaries. I represent Saddleworth, so I am aware, although perhaps less so than the hon. Gentleman, of that important point.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that it was difficult to recruit planners. The Government have recognised that through their policy and their actions. We are contributing 1.32 million annually for 132 postgraduate bursaries to get more planners into the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a time lag, but he makes a valid point. We believe that we have turned round the shortfall in numbers and that not only will more planners come through, but their status and quality will improve as a result of the training. That is not a criticism of existing planning officers, in case any of them read Hansard.

David Drew: Planning officers in rural areas need to be both proactive and sensitive, which we hope are not mutually exclusive. There are arguments over matters which sound prosaic to people in urban areasdisused barns, for example. Often communities want to reuse those facilities for some form of enterprise or sometimes for housing, even affordable housing, but they are ignored. That is one of the frustrations of the planning system. I hope that the Government will encourage the new planning officers to take account of such views.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is increasingly recognised that planners are under pressure not just to be professional, but to be communicators.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome highlighted the opportunities that e-government and electronic communications offer to upper-tier authorities, whether district or county, to embed the parish councils as partners in service delivery and in consultation and information. Those opportunities are significant. Duplication would be avoided, and the public often do not know which level services are delivered from.
	The hon. Gentleman's point about the attitude to parish councils is important. They should be embraced and their views taken seriously. Of course there are good and bad parish councils, and sometimes very parochial issues are raised, but that is outweighed by neighbourhood empowerment and the ability to achieve a sustainable community. People have the right to expect that their views will be taken into consideration and listened to. The alienation of the public from politics and policy decisions could be helped by strong and effective parish councils.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) obviously speaks with great knowledge about these matters. He wants unitary authorities. He emphasised the point about the third tier and I agree. I am grateful to him for praising the Government and pointing out to the House that we have funded parish councils and created the quality parish council scheme, which has devolved power. We want to see more of that and an acknowledgment that money has gone into the development of the village plans. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the House, and for his point about the university of Gloucestershire, which I was not aware of. I shall look further into it, as it is important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who is also very knowledgeable about these matters, spoke about the problem of part-parished areas. That is an important part of our White Paper debate and how we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that we should not impose parishes on areas that did not want them, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire is being taken into consideration in the White Paper.
	The hon. Member for Kettering is righthe has raised matters about all four levels of government. As far as I know, I am not due to attend a debate about the European Union in the near future, but perhaps he wants to complete his quintet with that. I congratulate him on the points that he made. I am jealous that he can chair a forum made up of 22 parishes, which must be a useful tool in representing his constituency. He raised the case of Barton Seagrave and Burton Latimer and mentioned the campaign of Mr. and Mrs. Mitchelson, and I acknowledge his point about the position of the parish in big planning applications. In such situations, the onus is on authorities and Governments to listen more to the views of parishes than they would otherwise do.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) acknowledged that there are good and bad parish councils. The detractors of parishes sometimes pick up on petty and parochial points, which is not a rational way to view parishes, and we must take into account that the vast majority of activity is good. He also raised an interesting point, which I shall take away, that a parish should be a planning authority. He also suggested that the parish has a role in enforcing planning decisions and planning law, which is a powerful point. He wants other powers for parishes and cited the example of the Isles of Scilly, which are in my mind at the moment because they are recipients of the formula grant in the local government settlementthey will receive 67,375. Funding is an important issue in moving more powers downwards, although I know that that is not the end of the argument.
	Turning to the policy questions, in addition to the statutory time limits of eight and 13 weeks for determining minor and major planning applications respectively, the Government have set performance targets for district and borough councils to encourage efficiency in their planning sector. We believe that timeliness in delivering planning decisions is an important part of a quality planning service, that applicants have a right to expect a measure of certainty in the handling of their development proposals and that quality should not be sacrificed to speed or quantity.
	As part of the best value regime, local planning authorities have the targets of dealing with 60 per cent. of major applications within 13 weeks, 65 per cent. of minor applications within eight weeks and 80 per cent. of other applications within eight weeks. Comparative results of local authority performance across England are published on the internet in the form of a checklist. As we shall see, however, there is no longer a performance target for the delegation of decisions to planning officers, which has been restricted as part of our general policy. We take the accusation that targets have perverse effects seriously.
	Let me say a little more about decision making and the planning system in general. Prompt decision making with no loss of quality is only one element of the planning services we want local authorities to provide. Communities deserve openness and transparency of process and of decision making. The latter must go further than simple compliance with the consultation arrangements laid down in the law. Improving the planning system is also predicated on increased public participation in the process, whether by individuals, by groups or by bodies such as the parish council.
	One of the main aims of our recent planning reforms has been to increase the involvement of local people in the planning decisions that affect their lives. Local planning authorities are now required to publish a statement of community involvement, setting out how local people and organisations will be not only engaged in the preparation and revision of local development documents, but consulted on the more significant planning applications. There is also independent examination of the statement of community involvement. A local planning authority must comply with its statement.
	We brought in this procedure to help to ensure that district and borough councils feel obliged to make greater and more effective efforts to engage the local community directly and to exploit the knowledge of their area which local people and, as all hon. Members have said, their parish councils can proffer to assist the planning system.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister look again at the application of the planning fees process? In an area such as Kettering, there is, in effect, a cap on the planning fees paid to local authorities by applicants. Four thousand houses are to be built between Kettering and Cranford. The maximum fee that the borough council can charge is 50,000, which will go nowhere near to covering the costs involved in processing the applications.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, to which further weight is added by the fact that there are inconsistencies between councils.
	The performance targets that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets for the handling of planning applications have no bearing on the legal requirement that local planning authorities consult parishes and await their representations. Local planning authorities reach their decisions on planning applications in accordance with their local development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. They should give due weight to any other relevant factors. In a particular case, the view expressed by the parish council could be one such factor. The law says that a local planning authority is not allowed to determine an application within 21 days of notifying a parish council. In other words, once it has notified the parish council, it has to allow at least 21 days before it can determine an application so as to allow it time to comment on those applications that it has asked to be told about.
	Let me deal with the question of the law and parish councils. A parish council indicates to a local planning authority which type or category of applications it wishes to be notified about. It is then a statutory duty on the planning authority to notify the parish and wait 21 days for any representations by it. The Government are convinced of the value of involving parish councils in this way by inviting their comments on any relevant planning application. A parish council's representations are not binding on the local planning authority. That would, in effect, pass the responsibility for determining planning applications to parish councils in all cases in which they were consulted. In the first instance, the decision maker remains the district or borough council or unitary authority.
	Those authorities have to act in what they deem to be the broader public interest, as well as having regard to planning law, when determining an application. The broader public interest may involve education and other important services. The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for St. Ives argued for a devolution of those broader public interest powers to a parish level. The Government question whether that is appropriate, but in doing so we encourage, through policy and the levers that are available, greater consultation with parishes.
	Furthermore, the planning authority is obliged to act within the law. All of us, as Members of Parliament, have found in our constituencies that the semi-judicial nature of planning committees can often cause frustration to the public.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, who is no longer here, made the point that devolution of planning powers to parish council level would involve more parish councils in conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest, which could not only exclude them in some instances, thereby not fulfilling the objective that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome outlined, but further discredit the planning process. It is a question of balance.
	From time to time, a parish council's comments on a specific scheme may conflict with other considerations and it is for the local planning authority to decide which of the conflicting views should prevail. In the broad framework of the law, local planning authorities devise their own detailed arrangements for handling responses to consultation. It would be unnecessarily prescriptive to set out in legislation the subject matter and form of consultations between local planning authorities and parish councils. Instead, consultation procedures are established on the basis of voluntary agreements, which are better able to reflect the circumstances of the relevant local councils. When disputes arise, they can and should be resolved locally.
	I suppose I point to the obvious paradox that, in attempting to get local authorities to devolve to local people, if the Government insist on how that should be   done, the policy can hardly be described as decentralised. Nevertheless, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister regards the delegation of suitable decisions to officers as an effective way sometimes of improving timeliness of decision making, which is why the Department encourages all local authorities to adopt a comprehensive system of delegation.
	Decisions can be delegated to officers only by the elected members, so it is the latter who determine, for example, the terms on which a delegated agreement operates, the level of member involvement and the circumstances in which an officer's delegated power to make a decision may not be exercised.
	We now come to the crux of the matter. The Local Government Association and the ODPM have jointly published guidance on schemes of delegation, called Delivering Delegation. Apart from reaffirming policy on delegation, that looks at the types of decision that can be delegated. There are best practice models of delegation schemes and that guidance has been agreed with local government representatives.
	There used to be a performance target of 90 per cent. on the extent of delegation. However, as a target, that figure was abolished with effect from 1 April 2004. In South Somerset, I understand that arrangements made by one local authority in particular have given rise to concern by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
	South Somerset district council is known to be seeking to improve its performance in development control. That includes the efficiency of handling individual applications. Consultants from the ODPM have completed an evaluation of the authority's current performance and are due to visit the planning service there in the next few months.
	A scheme of delegation for development control in South Somerset was established in 1995. With encouragement and support from ODPM, the Planning Advisory Service and the Government office for the south-west, South Somerset district council introduced various measures to speed up performance and improve the overall quality of decision making. That included reviewing the delegation scheme and the existing arrangements for consultation with parish councils.
	Last year, the council introduced a by exception scheme of delegation. Many local planning authorities have operated voluntarily a procedure whereby a significant disagreement between planning staff and the incoming opinions of a parish council would cause the matter to be sent to committee for determination, even if the case is of a type or scale that would normally be delegated to a planning officer for decision. By contrast, the by exception principle means that all applications are delegated unless specific criteria are met.
	The effect of the model is that it removes the hitherto automatic referral of planning applications for consideration by the planning committee where a parish council's comments differ from the view put forward by the council's planning department. Concerns have been raised that that is, in effect, a reduction in the role and status of parish councils in influencing the decision-making process.
	Although the by exception model may have aroused the fear of a loss of influence at parish level, I   should emphasise that the model is very much in line with the approach that is endorsed by the LGA/ODPM guidance, which I have already mentioned. In 2004, 85 per cent. of applications in South Somerset district council were dealt with under delegated powers. The council considered that that needed to be increased to 90 per cent. but, as I have said, there is no such performance target from us.

David Heath: It is important to say for the record that I have received more complaints from parish councils about the planning system in Mendip district council than in South Somerset district council.

Phil Woolas: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that. I am trying to be helpful, and explain the process. I will try to be brief, as I appreciate that I   have more time than usual.
	Applications can now be published immediately on an authority's website, which means that we can consult parish councils and other bodies more quickly, as the hon. Gentleman hinted. The time scales can therefore be improved by the use of the new technology. As everyone agrees, parish councils play a key role in the planning process. There is disagreement in some instances between the case officer and a parish council but, as I   have said, many councils still consider such cases in committee. It is entirely possible to reform the culture of the service at both member and officer level to reflect the need for speedy, good-quality and transparent decisions while retaining public confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process.
	In the past four years nearly 3,000 parishes have been   working on parish plans. Based on extensive consultation, a parish plan identifies and prioritises a community's needs, and sets out the way in which they might be tackled. The local planning authority should always take account of the existence of such parish plans and other village plans when designing the local development schemes that set out their programme of plan making in their areas. Parish plans and village plans provide useful evidence of rural issues and may suggest suitable options for rural areas when development plans are drawn up. Parishes can then request the local planning authority to publicise, consult on, and adopt those elements of parish plans that elaborate on development plan policy as supplementary planning documents.
	Considerable voluntary effort goes into making parish plans, as we all know. Naturally, local communities do not want to feel that their efforts have had no result. If adopted as a supplementary planning document, a parish's vision of its future can take its place within the local development framework as a consideration to be given due weight whenever relevant development proposals are under discussion. It is important to emphasise that parish councils must involve themselves fully from the start in the preparation of their local authority's development plan documents. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are about 120 parishes in his district of South Somerset. I   am afraid I cannot remember how many there are in Mendip, but there is a substantial number of parish councils. South Somerset district council is confident that those parish councils will continue to receive a good service from its development control team, including attendance by individual officers at parish council meetings where appropriate.
	Allowing parishes to become planning decision makers would, as I have suggested, be prohibitively expensive. The Government do not intend to take that route for that reason and the others that I have outlined. In our view, the present mechanismsI acknowledge that they do not always work perfectly and to people's satisfactionform the right model, and give ample opportunity for a parish to reach a view and for that view to be taken into account. No one in local government should wish to antagonise their communities with unnecessary and insensitive development. It is unlikely that teething problems that may arise in particular delegation schemes cannot be sorted out by the relevant local authority under its own protocols within the existing framework of law and guidance.
	I know that some might feel that delegation to officers means that they lose the opportunity to see applications debated in public. They might take a similar line, however, when a proposal is passed to an area committee for determination instead of to the full planning committee. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the type of delegation schemes that I have described are transparent, with a clear audit trail, and there is still a discretion to send a proposal to the committee if appropriatefor instance, where a scheme is controversial. The only real change is loss of automatic referral to the committee where parish views conflict with those of the designated officer. In that regard, I   think that the balance is right.
	I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I indicated that I would try to answer all his questions.

David Heath: The Minister has given an extremely full response, for which I am grateful. I do not want to prolong the debate further, but will he address specifically the point about village plans and how they are treated in planning terms, because many of my villages that have produced village plans feel strongly that they ought to have a more significant status in terms of arriving at development control decisions?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will put the matter on the record for the benefit of his constituents and others who might be interested.
	Under the new system, supplementary planning documents have statutory status, although they are not part of the statutory development plan. We are still in a transitional phase. To ensure that authorities can continue to have supplementary material in place, PPS 12 states that, as part of the transitional arrangements, supplementary planning guidance can continue to supplement saved development plan policies and will remain while saved policies are in place. However, supplementary planning guidance will need to be replaced by supplementary planning documents when new development plan documents are adopted replacing saved policies. I ask the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to bear with me, as it does make sense.
	Supplementary planning documents form part of the new local development framework. They have greater weight than the old supplementary guidance because they have complied with the requirements for community involvement and sustainability appraisal and conform with the development plan policy. Therefore, more power is given to supplementary planning documents than under the old system.
	Parish plans can add value by expressing a greater level of detail than is possible in development plan documents. While parish plans may be adopted as a supplementary planning document, that is not to be seen as the norm. Technically, a supplementary planning document has to supplement a development plan document policy. Turning parish plans into supplementary planning documents is likely to be time-consuming. In South Somerset, for example, the small planning department is trying to prioritise housing delivery and regeneration, so there are tensions. Parish plans are in the nature of community planning, and only when requirements such as public involvement and sustainability appraisal have been met may the spatial planning components, possibly modified, be adoptable. That is the policy outline for the parish plan. I see that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is frowning. If he wants to write to me to take up specific points, I   will, of course, try to answer him.
	Parish planning is a tried and tested tool for strengthening local democracy and engaging citizens in how their local area and services are managed. During the past four years, nearly 3,000 parishes have been producing 1,250 parish plans, and when one bears in mind that many of those are in clusters, the extent of their geographical coverage is clear. From 2001 to 2005, parish plans were delivered and supported by the Countryside Agency, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made available more than 1 million for parish plans this year, and will continue offering support for parish plans and parish councils from 2006 through the rural social and   community programme. Rural community councils allocate grants for villages to produce a parish plan of up to 5,000. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be pleased to know that some parish plans have been adopted as supplementary planning documents, and can provide a valuable evidence base for decision makers.
	The benefits of the strategy do exist. I hope that I have been able to convince the House of the Government's genuine intention of involving parishes and parish councils in decision making. I also hope that I have explained the balance of powers between planning authority and parish, and how we intend to proceed with the policy in the White Paper debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Seven o'clock.